Falmer

[Lord Bracknell]

But the 'facts' you have given have often been proven to be less than accurate and in many cases a downright distortion.

Such as?

Such as my earlier post:-

What FACTS?

"We were pushed around by a Parish Council"?

That is NOT a "fact". It is a complete distortion of what happened. The planning application was called in for a Public Inquiry by the Secretary of State. The principal objector was a Local Planning Authority. At the end of the Inquiry, planning permission was granted by the Secretary of State, but it transpired that a civil servant had drafted the decision letter incorrectly. The Local Planning Authority used their legal powers to challenge the decision. The Secretary of State was therefore obliged to re-open the Inquiry. Finally, the Secretary of State granted planning permission, which was not challenged.

At no point in this long, drawn out saga did the football club have any option available to them that would have shortened the process.

Those are the FACTS.

Now ... will you acknowledge this to be the truth?

 

[Tooting Gull]

In the good old days, we'd have just bribed a few of 'em, and got the job done a lot quicker and at far less expense.....

*Sigh* That's democratic progress for you. And obviously you can't condone that sort of behaviour.

 

[Easy 10]

What FACTS?

"We were pushed around by a Parish Council"?

That is NOT a "fact". It is a complete distortion of what happened. The planning application was called in for a Public Inquiry by the Secretary of State. The principal objector was a Local Planning Authority. At the end of the Inquiry, planning permission was granted by the Secretary of State, but it transpired that a civil servant had drafted the decision letter incorrectly. The Local Planning Authority used their legal powers to challenge the decision. The Secretary of State was therefore obliged to re-open the Inquiry. Finally, the Secretary of State granted planning permission, which was not challenged.

At no point in this long, drawn out saga did the football club have any option available to them that would have shortened the process.

Those are the FACTS.

Now ... will you acknowledge this to be the truth?

I think you'll find this is yet another one Arthur will conveniently sidestep Lord B.
Its far too specific for him to deal with - as has become apparent, Arthur can only respond with vague bluster, ill-informed claptrap and general twaddle. Responding to specific points with a concise argument backed up with fact isn't really his forte.

 

[MOG]

Having just re-read ALL of this thread, the only conclusions I can come to are -

1. Arthur seems to have some problem about the board of the club in general and Martin Perry in particular.

I don't believe in the teams ability to deliver because it has delivered f*** all so far apart from a few fancy drawings and a ruddy great dent in our bank account!

Yeah I'll answer.....we were pushed around by a Parish Council!!! Of course the delays were avoidable but as I've stated elsewhere it's not in Martin Perry or his team interest to get them sorted quickly is it!! I'm sure his pension fund is looking very handsome now!

2.He also seems to think that because there have been UNAVOIDABLE delays in the past that this situation will continue.

Where is your evidence that they WILL

The form suggests YEARS of delays

Well form does suggests that something else will come up which will delay the project doesn't it? I and many other believe that allot of the delays we've suffered were avoidable.

191 Building....NONE! Which backs up my point very nicely!

Trying to.......we've been trying for the last 8 years and given that there was talk of leaving the Goldstone for as long as I can remember quite allot I'd say!

BTW I voted 'probably' simply because NOBODY can guarantee the weather etc. I do believe the Stadium will be completed by the proposed date or very soon after.

 

[dougdeep]

Falmer day 1 report! - North Stand Chat

 

[ROSM]

Such as?

How about the application to the lottery for grant funding which you revealed as a major example that the club must be short of cash to NOW approach these people. It just happened to be that the club themselves announced this source of funding a full 8 years before you. I expect your next answer to be 'perhaps they were hoping everybody had forgotten' just to keep the conspiracy theory alive and kicking.

 

[ROSM]

Christ, you can believe that maybe is a positive vote as well if you want!

Thanks but I'm happy to settle with the other two. Not that in the grand scheme of things, a vite like this makes any difference to the debate, except perhaps to prove that a majority of those questioned have reasonable to high confidence that the stadium will be completed by or about the date quoted.

But whether you're an optimist or a pessimist, it wont affect the outcome. Except that the optimist will have a better time waiting for the result.

You will also note that many of the 'lickers' or 'bobblers', or 'ra-ra brigade' or 'patsies' or indeed any other epithet you will throw out to support your case (even resorting to questioning their knowledge and insight on :shudder: football itself), have voted probably which means they accept that nothing can be guaranteed.