• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Millwall potentially forced to relocate to Kent

I don't really care about the Millwall fans, but they shouldn't have to do this just so dodgy politicians and their mates can line their own pockets.

I hope what you mean is you don't care about some alleged Millwall fans. I lived close to their ground for over 30 years and know a lot of decent people who follow the club, they just have a few louts who give the club a bad name and lazy journalist hang their hat on a stereotype. I've seen as much bad behaviour following Tottenham as I have living near Millwall.
 
this is the future of the game, clubs are going to move around, and a lot are going to go out of business completely, Millwall should use this as an opportunity to maximise their catchment area, they should maybe even look at a merger

as I said above, they only moved to the location in an effort to make money, that someone wants to move them out to do the same thing is just the other side of the coin, it's the way the world works
 
this is the future of the game, clubs are going to move around, and a lot are going to go out of business completely, Millwall should use this as an opportunity to maximise their catchment area, they should maybe even look at a merger

as I said above, they only moved to the location in an effort to make money, that someone wants to move them out to do the same thing is just the other side of the coin, it's the way the world works

I think it's a little unfair to say they moved to make money, The Den was an awful stadium with limited access routes, night games could not be televised as the floodlights were so poor. The cost of bring it up to the standards required in the Taylor Report were probably greater than moving to a new stadium and the local council wanted to develop the area around New Cross and with available space in the nearby industrial area it made good sense for all. A move to somewhere on the A2 corridor would probably benefit many of their supporters as the local population has changed over the past 20 years but I still have a worry of this sort of action.
 
this is the future of the game, clubs are going to move around, and a lot are going to go out of business completely, Millwall should use this as an opportunity to maximise their catchment area, they should maybe even look at a merger

as I said above, they only moved to the location in an effort to make money, that someone wants to move them out to do the same thing is just the other side of the coin, it's the way the world works


Spoken like someone who is a fan of the NFL where clubs move ( follow the money) and could not give a fudge about the fans who have followed their team for generations. Its a disgrace.
 
Non Premiership clubs have to work hard to get support from younger fans, particularly in London where they compete with up to 5 "big" clubs along with the northern red element. They do a lot of work in the local youth of the community and if this disappears there will be no one to pick up the slack and more kids will miss out on playing this great game.
 
I think it's a little unfair to say they moved to make money, The Den was an awful stadium with limited access routes, night games could not be televised as the floodlights were so poor. The cost of bring it up to the standards required in the Taylor Report were probably greater than moving to a new stadium and the local council wanted to develop the area around New Cross and with available space in the nearby industrial area it made good sense for all. A move to somewhere on the A2 corridor would probably benefit many of their supporters as the local population has changed over the past 20 years but I still have a worry of this sort of action.

i meant the move to the current area in the early 1900's, like arsenal it was done solely to attract more customers
 
Just merge with Charlton to make Milton Athletic.

They'll still be about the 8th biggest team in London
 
this is the future of the game, clubs are going to move around, and a lot are going to go out of business completely, Millwall should use this as an opportunity to maximise their catchment area, they should maybe even look at a merger

as I said above, they only moved to the location in an effort to make money, that someone wants to move them out to do the same thing is just the other side of the coin, it's the way the world works
O don't think it is the "future", it's always happened. Just take a look at the club lists 100 years ago and see how many are still around.
It's quite a big change for what is essentially 80 years (exuding the two world wars and short periods after).
The difference is the coverage.

London also creates a different perspective - most clubs that have moved in the past twenty odd years have moved a fair distance, it's just less noticeable in 1/2/3 club towns.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
I've always thought Kent has been hard done by with just Gillingham to shout about, I think Millwall's "no-one likes us and we don't care image" will be a great fit for the serene and posh areas of Sevenoaks and Tunbridge wells
 
1952.jpg
 
Millwall stadium controversy intensifies as false funding claims revealed

The sports foundation at the heart of the Millwall FC compulsory purchase battle has been making false claims of having a £2m funding agreement from Sport England during the ongoing CPO process, the Guardian can reveal. The claims have been made by the Surrey Canal Sports Foundation, a charitable company set up and backed by loans from Renewal, an offshore-registered developer with historical connections to senior Lewisham council officers that stands to benefit from the seizure of Millwall’s land.

The revelations will be seized on by opponents of the scheme and could throw into doubt the future of the entire £1bn project. The compulsory purchase is the subject of local protest and wider public concern, with suggestions from Millwall’s chief executive that the fallout from the seizure of land around the Den could even threaten the club’s future existence in London.

Sport England is the UK’s most prestigious grassroots sport funding vehicle. The £2m Sport England “pledge” has been mentioned repeatedly as a material factor by Lewisham council and the Renewal‑backed foundation, whose functions are key to the viability of the scheme. Such a grant would in practice act as a major rubber-stamp of viability and authenticity, a threshold that once passed “unlocks” access to other potential sources of charitable and public money.

The £2m claim was present on 25 June 2014 in a report to Lewisham’s mayor and cabinet recommending the grant of half a million pounds of public money to the foundation. It was repeated as “a pledge in principle” in CPO documents produced by the council last year. The claim of £2m Sport England funding has been splashed across the Surrey Canal Sports Foundation website, which was taken down within the past 24 hours.

In fact no such funding agreement exists. No application for a funding agreement is in process. Sport England has confirmed that it has had no official correspondence with the foundation since September 2014.

Sport England 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.”

In spite of this the £2m claim was listed in a table of “capital pledges” in the written section of the foundation’s 2014-15 accounts, documents that are subject to strict duties of accuracy and accountability. These accounts, which are an important source of information for potential donors and partners, were signed off by the former Tory minster Steven Norris.

Norris told the Guardian that Surrey Canal Sports Foundation originally approached Sport England in 2011 but that no application had been live since October 2013.

The Surrey Canal Sport Foundation was created to raise £40m in order to create a “sports village” as part of the development around the Den. It remains key to the argument in favour of public interest for the CPO-based scheme. The foundation’s directors include Sir Steve Bullock, the mayor of Lewisham; Norris; and Jordana Malik, a director of Renewal. Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson was a trustee but is understood to have recently resigned from her position at the charity.

It is this foundation, whose accounts are issued jointly by all directors, that has claimed to have the £2m of Sport England funding. In January 2014, five months before half a million pounds of Lewisham council public money was granted to the foundation, Norris wrote in a Surrey Canal Sport Foundation “pitch” brochure called New Energy: “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.”

More: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jan/19/millwall-stadium-false-funding-claims-the-den

Norris? Any relation?

Also what's Ken Bates up to now?
 
Spoken like someone who is a fan of the NFL where clubs move ( follow the money) and could not give a fudge about the fans who have followed their team for generations. Its a disgrace.

NFL cities have to build new stadiums every 30 years or so just so teams don't threaten to relocate. And who does the heavy burden of paying for the stadium fall on? Not the billionaire owners, it's the tax payer.
 
NFL cities have to build new stadiums every 30 years or so just so teams don't threaten to relocate. And who does the heavy burden of paying for the stadium fall on? Not the billionaire owners, it's the tax payer.

Indeed.

The first NFL game i saw live was the 1980 Super bowl when the Oakland Raiders won. They were from Oakland but moved to LA, then they moved back to Oakland and now ( from what i have been told) they are looking to relocate to Las Vegas.

Screw the local fans is the motto in the NFL.
 
The San Diego Chargers are moving to LA because the city won't help them with a $1.8 billion stadium. They will be playing in a 30k stadium until the one they will share is finished.

On the Millwall stadium, it seems opposition is hotting up. Surely they can't go ahead with such obvious fraudulent representation and conflicts of interest with senior councilmen.
 
is it true that the land in question doesn't actually overlap with the current stadium?

i've seen that in a couple of places but there doesn't seem to be a straight answer
 
Back