The Football Club said recently that in all likelihood our Council would turn down planning permission for a larger stadium and that therefore they should leave, having already appointed architects to look at the Battersea power station site.
But last week our Council replied that it would be possible to enlarge the stadium and that the club should stay. Chelsea fans suspect the Clubs motivation has more to do with the failed attempt to buy the pitch from the fan organisation that owns it, infuriating owner Roman Abramovitch.
My fellow blogger over at True Blue, a Chelsea fan site, asks the question - who do you trust? The Council or the Club? It's a question over trust on planning issues that for me has come to define this Council, with trust being in short supply from residents after being repeatedly ignored in favour of property developers - just think of the Hammersmith King Street project which is on ice (and will return if Boris is re-elected), the Goldhawk Road scheme, the Shepherd's Bush Market scheme and of course the West Ken estate. In each case a 'consultation' is launched, but the Council does what it wants anyway - and then tries to gag the planning committee that is supposed to act independently.
True Blue puts the Chelsea situation thus:
Hammersmith and Fulham council, is by and large extremely sensitive to criticism, and what it sees as political pressure being heaped upon it, especially when the next election is never too far away.
Councillor Nick Botterill, deputy leader of the council said in his awe-inspiring way: “Stamford Bridge is Chelsea’s historic home and the council believes it should be their future home.
“We cannot comment on the financial conclusions CFC have drawn but it is very likely that any move away from Fulham would cost far more than the £600million the club claims it would cost to rebuild its current ground or the cost of upgrading and expanding the existing Stamford Bridge structures.”
So if they cannot comment on Chelsea financial conclusions, how DID they come to conclude that it would cost Chelsea FC more than £600million to move out of the borough.
Chelsea would no doubt, like it to be known that the council hasn’t come up with any figures to back up that assertion.
So who do you now trust?
The club say that they have no plans (yet) to propose a new buy back of CPO shares.
The council says its willing to talk to the club - the club says likewise.
Neither seems willing to make the first move towards meaning and binding dialogue.
For my penny’s worth, I think both sides are so disingenuous - their past actions and words are paradigm examples of this, that it is clear that the present incumbents are neither truly willing or capable of finding a solution.
“We cannot comment on the financial conclusions CFC have drawn but it is very likely that any move away from Fulham would cost far more than the £600million the club claims it would cost to rebuild its current ground or the cost of upgrading and expanding the existing Stamford Bridge structures.”
So if they cannot comment on Chelsea financial conclusions, how DID they come to conclude that it would cost Chelsea FC more than £600million to move out of the borough.
Chelsea would no doubt, like it to be known that the council hasn’t come up with any figures to back up that assertion.
So who do you now trust?
The club say that they have no plans (yet) to propose a new buy back of CPO shares.
The council says its willing to talk to the club - the club says likewise.
Neither seems willing to make the first move towards meaning and binding dialogue.
For my penny’s worth, I think both sides are so disingenuous - their past actions and words are paradigm examples of this, that it is clear that the present incumbents are neither truly willing or capable of finding a solution.
A reasonable conclusion.
0 comments:
Post a Comment