Best way to approach the new inquiry?

[Marc]

I view it one of these three ways:

1) We simply re-use what we used in the last inquiry but updated where needed, additions/deletions where needed etc.

or

2) Re-write it in a way that its all about why X is not viable, then onto the next site and so on and so forth hardly mentioning Falmer (as the inquiry is basically not about Falmer per se)

or

3) Compare each site to Falmer and throw in all the pros/cons with Falmer coming out on top each time (this maybe the same as option 1 but not sure, Lord B?)

Personally I dont want the club to just go hell for leather and keep saying "Falmer is best the rest are crap", I'd rather see a full on comparison to ALL the other sites with Falmer coming out top but heavily focusing on WHY those sites are not viable. Thats the way I believe the club will do it, again Lord B would this be the way they are heading or intend to head?

 

[Ex Shelton Seagull]

I say take Waterhall, Greyhound Stadium and Brighton Station out of the equation straight away. The first two sites were rejected by both inspectors and the station is being developed on so can be discounted.
Shoreham Harbour is very long term and the Port Authority wrote a full rebuttal to the Downsmen's claim that it was a viable site for a stadium.
We need to concentrate on Sheepcote Valley, Toads Hole Valley and Withdean. These were the sites that were recommended as alternatives in both reports.
We need to look at why Collyer and Hoile recommended those sites and take apart each claim. It needs to be done in detail and be up to date.