WHO Poll
Q: 2020/2021 Where will we finish up this season?
a. Top Four, Champions League here we come
b. 5th-7th Europa League is well within our grasp
c. 8th to 14th anywhere in mid table is about right
d. We're in a dog fight before a ball has been kicked and we'll do well to finish 17th or just above
e. GSB have derailed our season before a ball has been kicked, the Championship beckons

Queens Fish Bar 11:26 Thu Jan 5
Millwall NOT moving to Kent
Millwall Football Club have admitted for the first time that they may be forced to leave their south London home and relocate to Kent should the seizure of their land go ahead. Lewisham council’s plan to compulsorily purchase areas around the Den and sell them on to a mysterious offshore developer with connections to the current Labour administration has already drawn both disbelief and mass protest.
With the CPO likely to be confirmed at a council meeting next Wednesday Millwall have conceded publicly for the first time the club could have to leave the area that has been their home since 1910. In a statement Steve Kavanagh, their chief executive, told the Guardian: “The chairman has always been determined that this would never happen, but under such circumstances any and every option would have to be considered to secure the football club and the Millwall Community Trust’s future as viable concerns.”

Millwall compulsory purchase order hearing adjourned by Lewisham council
Lewisham council’s final hearing of the compulsory purchase order of Millwall’s land around The Den was dramatically adjourned on Thursday night, to be reheard on 13 January
Read more
Millwall have so far been cautious about conceding relocation might be the real threat. But with the community trust already set to be evicted and the club excluded from the benefits of the regeneration scheme, it also emerged last month that their academy may be unable to function under the current proposals.
There is no suggestion yet of a specific alternative site. The north Kent coast has been mentioned more broadly in the past, an uprooting that would see the club plonked down up to a hundred miles from its historic home. Such a move would also be a stunning blow to Lewisham itself. A London borough with a population the size of Iceland would be left without a professional sports club of any kind.
Should the order be confirmed the ripples will be felt by other league clubs in areas where rising land prices are likely to attract developers with an eye on regeneration. Supporters of nearby Charlton Athletic and Leyton Orient will be watching with interest, as will other mid-size Football League clubs across the country.
Until now concerns over the Millwall land-grab have centred on the council’s historic relationship with the offshore developers Renewal. Renewal’s chief executive is a former Lewisham officer and colleague of the current Lewisham chief executive, Barry Quirk, an unelected official best known locally for being paid more pro rata than the prime minister for working a three day week. In another bizarre twist Renewal was also set up and originality part-owned by the previous Labour mayor of Lewisham, Dave Sullivan. Sullivan has stated he no longer has any part in the company, which is owned by two anonymous offshore trusts based in the Isle Of Man and the British Virgin Islands.
The chair of Lewisham’s own overview & scrutiny committee, Alan Hall, has been a lone voice inside the council with the courage to speak out against the CPO process. “Millwall Football Club are part of the cultural history of London and Lewisham with over 100 years in the borough,” Hall said. “Over the past five years Renewal’s original outline planning application has fallen apart in slow motion in front of our very eyes. The ever-shrinking proposed ‘sporting village’ will drive away one of football’s most famous clubs and its highly successful community scheme.”
The AMS Millwall supporters’ organisation has led the fight on behalf of the club’s fans. On Wednesday the AMS published its own open letter to Quirk, who has emerged as the driving force behind the scheme – the mayor, Sir Steve Bullock, having stepped back due the fact he is, astonishingly, director of a Renewal-associated company, the Surrey Canal Sporting Trust.

Millwall given new hope in land battle as disquiet grows over property deal
Lewisham council’s decision to grant compulsory purchase orders on land around Millwall’s ground, The Den, is coming under intense scrutiny from its own councillors
Read more
The AMS letter points to the alarming democratic deficit in Lewisham’s elected mayor system. The current setup, introduced as a Blair government initiative, has left the borough with a largely unregulated cabinet and a chief executive, in the shape of Quirk, who has no mandate, is electorally unaccountable, but is currently heading up a scheme that will evict local residents from their homes.
The letter also points out that the council’s attempts to provide reassurance on the probity of its plans in the form of an email from Mushtaq Malik, Renewal’s CEO, are likely to be met with derision. “Is it right,” the AMS asks, “that the council has been put in a position where its chief executive is reduced to publishing emails from a third party actively denying that inside deals, murkiness and personal relationships are in play?”
The AMS also voiced its own fears that offshore developers could be allowed to succeed where the Luftwaffe’s bombs and successive economic depressions have previously been staved off: “Failure to listen to genuine concerns could, we fear, lead to Millwall Football Club’s loss of academy status as recognised by the EFL and ultimately the club being forced to relocate from the London borough of Lewisham.”
The Liberal Democrat party has also called for the plans to be scrapped. “The only compelling case that’s been made is that this Renewal scheme will be a disaster for the local community.” Bobby Dean, Parliamentary spokesperson said. “Millwall FC is the largest sporting asset Lewisham has and their future cannot be jeopardised by this luxury scheme with no regard to affordable housing. Lewisham should withdraw the plans and start again – this time properly involving the football club and local community.”

Replies - Newest Posts First (Show In Chronological Order)

SurfaceAgentX2Zero 5:55 Thu Jan 26
Re: Millwall moving to Kent
How the fuck is anywhere on the North Kent coast 100 miles away from their current stadium somewhat to the east of London?

Perhaps they should move to Belvedere or some shit-hole like that where they can squabble endlessly about whether they are in London or Kent.

COOL HAND LUKE 1:40 Thu Jan 26
Re: Millwall moving to Kent

Shame that, they've always been very feckin' Kentish on the occasions I've met up with 'em...

Bit too salubrious darn there for 'em anyway, I'd say...

gank 11:49 Thu Jan 26
Re: Millwall moving to Kent
Local news down here said last night the move was definitely off and they're staying put.

wanstead_hammer 11:12 Thu Jan 26
Re: Millwall moving to Kent
With a special gate for the West Ham lot of course.

wanstead_hammer 10:50 Thu Jan 26
Re: Millwall moving to Kent
I should think so as well.
Was out of order trying to move our arch enemies out.
I wonder if Trump will pay for a mill-wall instead. Right along the line of the Thames.

Eddie B 10:12 Thu Jan 26
Re: Millwall moving to Kent
Looks like they're staying put now:


jfk 3:36 Sat Jan 21
Re: Millwall moving to Kent
Regardless of our so called hatred this is all wrong.
The New Den is a prime location for gentfication.
Following our clubs through thick and thin on a first come first in the ground basis which was easily affordable is a distant memory.
West Ham will always be my team and will still go to most home games.
I appreciate times have changed and fully understand how money controls the game.
It's all just shit nowadays.
I go through thinking it's still a tradition./piss up with the same group of friends that have done the same for thirty years.
It's great when we win like last Saturday but it's not the same.
I'm not sure I can be bothered anymore.

gph 2:57 Sat Jan 21
Kent moving to the Moon

J.Riddle 2:28 Sat Jan 21
Re: Millwall moving to Kent
Was never the same them moving from the old den. Reckon they will go as too much money in land around there now, Bermondsey, Shard and Elephant developments have been a game changer in them parts. Gawd knows where they will end up, isle of sheppey mentioned?

normannomates 2:02 Sat Jan 21
Re: Millwall moving to Kent
Old foe that I have a lot of respect for.

Funny thing.

All wrong this

Sir Alf 1:52 Sat Jan 21
Re: Millwall moving to Kent
Bunch of Kents !! the lot of em

tunwhu 1:51 Sat Jan 21
Re: Millwall moving to Kent
Not wrong Sarge!

Sarge 11:22 Fri Jan 20
Re: Millwall moving to Kent
They'd pack out culverden stadium tunwhu.

tunwhu 11:19 Fri Jan 20
Re: Millwall moving to Kent
Roby, there are Millwall down here already, some well known. To be honest I've met bigger wankers supporting other clubs.

Any Medway town has the Burberry gene too.

Stranded 7:31 Fri Jan 20
Re: Millwall moving to Kent


Millwall stadium foundation got taxpayer money with misleading claims

• Foundation linked to developer got £500,000 from Lewisham council
• Charity Commission looks into Surrey Canal Sports Foundation

In a further extraordinary twist to the Millwall compulsory purchase saga the Guardian can reveal that Lewisham council awarded half a million pounds of public money to the foundation at the heart of the land-seizure scheme based on a report containing significant misleading claims.

The false information relates to claims of a funding deal with the prestigious sports body Sport England. These claims have been made repeatedly by the Surrey Canal Sports Foundation, whose directors include Sir Steve Bullock, the mayor of Lewisham. The foundation is a charitable company set up by Renewal, the offshore-registered developers who stand to be granted the right to build on Millwall’s land at the Den.

The Surrey Canal Sports Foundation exists to raise funds to build a £40m “sports village” – known as the Energize Centre – that is vital to the entire development. The Bullock-associated foundation made the misleading claims of a £2m funding agreement repeatedly during the process of securing the £500,000 grant of public money toward this total. These claims are made in company accounts, a pitch brochure and a council funding recommendation report, all of which carry the mayor’s name.

In reality there is no funding agreement with Sport England. Nor is there a current application for funding. A Sport England spokesman told the Guardian: “In 2010 we received a funding application from the Surrey Canal Sports Foundation, but this was subsequently withdrawn in 2013. We therefore have no funding agreement, of any kind, in place with them.”

The Guardian also understands that the Charity Commission has started looking into the Surrey Canal Sports Foundation. That news has emerged a day after the Guardian reported the inaccurate claims of the Sport England funding agreement. The Charity Commission has not divulged what it is examining.

Sport England is the UK’s most prestigious sports funding body, distributing £347m each year to carefully vetted grassroots charities at the end of a formal application process and only when strict conditions are met. Sport England’s financial support is seen as a rubber stamp of authenticity that can also “unlock” other sources of public and charitable money.

The revelation that the mayor has been involved on both sides of a grant of public funds informed by inaccurate information could move the Millwall land-grab story out of the realms of the sports pages and into wider territory.

It has been a curiosity of the ongoing Millwall CPO proceedings that the elected mayor of a council seeking to impose the seizure of the club’s land should also be a director of a charitable company that relies on the order going through. As is entirely proper Bullock has declared his interest from the start and excuses himself from any discussion of the £1bn regeneration project during council business.

Bullock told the Guardian on Monday: “To the best of my knowledge the descriptions of the relationships and financial promises in the Surrey Canal Sports Foundation annual report are accurate and I believe that I have discharged my duties as a trustee and director appropriately in relation to this report.

“On the basis of the information provided at meetings of the SCSF Board I am satisfied that funding has been promised by Sport England.”

If the mayor has been misled into putting his name to inaccurate claims due to failure to share relevant information then serious questions will be asked about the foundation’s administration. Bullock has been dubbed mayor Bananaman on social media after it emerged that the address of the foundation to which he puts his name was previously listed on its website as 29 Acacia Road, an apparently unconnected location in north London that appears, in a bizarre detail, to be a version of the home address of the cartoon superhero Bananaman, real name Eric Wimp.

That was still in place in the summer of 2014 when the grant of half a million pounds of council money was secured. As were the false claims of a Sport England funding agreement. The introduction to a pitch brochure called New Energy given to the council in January 2014 states: “The Foundation already has £12m in commitments from Sport England and the Developer Renewal … I would ask the London Borough of Lewisham to publicly and financially support this project.”

Inside the brochure the words “£2m pledged by Sport England” are picked out in a large bright red graphic. Sport England is mentioned eight times in all. This brochure was sent to Bullock’s Labour council with his name and face prominently attached.

Six months later, in July 2014, the council agreed to award the grant. That decision was approved with the recommendation of an internal Lewisham report to the mayor and cabinet dated 25 June 2014. In that report it is stated again that “Sport England pledged, in 2012, £2million towards the capital costs”.

Reservations about the grant were raised at the time by the council’s own scrutiny committee, with councillor Liam Curran calling the entire scheme vague and expressing doubts about awarding the money. Council meeting minutes show Curran’s doubts were specifically reassured by mention of the promise of £2m Sport England funding.

In a statement Bullock said: “I was not involved in the drafting of the report considered by the council so am not in a position to answer this question definitively although I understand that documentary evidence of the offer was seen prior to the report being considered.”

Transfer of the funds from council accounts has yet to happen, the Guardian understands, although the promise to do so is in place. For now the award of half a million pounds on the back of a misleading dossier and a series of false funding claims will raise some deeply uncomfortable questions.

In particular the 25 July report recommending the money be donated was signed off by Lewisham council’s head of law. Questions will be asked about what kind of due diligence was performed on the intended recipient of half a million pounds of public money. A simple email to Sport England’s freedom of information service could have confirmed almost immediately that in fact no funding agreement was in place.

A council spokesman said: “The council has previously seen a letter of support for the Energize Centre from Sport England, and has had it reconfirmed in 2016 that all pledges remain valid and that Sport England are awaiting the council’s CPO decision prior to ‘active discussion’ resuming.”

In a related matter Bullock could also have questions to answer over his responsibility for information published on behalf of a charitable limited company of which he is a director. The Sport England funding “pledge” is mentioned prominently in the foundation’s company accounts for the past two years, for which all directors carry a joint responsibility. The £2m Sport England funding agreement claim was still splashed across the foundation’s website until Wednesday this week, when it was taken down without explanation.

Oi wot u looking at? 10:50 Sat Jan 7
Re: Millwall moving to Kent
They could ground share with Gillingham their fans would blend in very well down there. Could give the local Sports Direct a much need boost too.

eusebiovic 10:43 Sat Jan 7
Re: Millwall moving to Kent
*about rivalry

eusebiovic 10:43 Sat Jan 7
Re: Millwall moving to Kent
I have lived in Millwall territory for 40 years but I signed the petition to ask the council to reconsider selling the land around the stadium - Am I a bad person? 😉

A stadium in Dartford would make perfect financial sense but it would be wrong on so many levels...Football is all above rivalry... It's what makes us come back for more

mallard 9:03 Fri Jan 6
Re: Millwall moving to Kent
Totally agree, but if they were offered a state of the art stadium 8 miles away, I'm sure they'd be less complaints

Troy McClure 9:02 Fri Jan 6
Re: Millwall moving to Kent
Haven't read through the comments but I'm hoping you all agree that this is absolutely fucking disgraceful - no matter how much of a cunty club they are

Lily Hammer 9:02 Fri Jan 6
Re: Millwall moving to Kent
Ashford, for semi-iconic travel links.

Page 1 - Next

Copyright 2006 WHO.NET | Powered by: