The following is a series of passages from the transcript of a meeting
held by the Haydons Bridge Residents Association. Invited guests were
Charles Koppel (Chairman, WFC), Matthias Hauger (Director, WFC) and Dan
Tench (Legal advisor to WFC). Approximately 20-25 local residents attended.
The meeting was not publicised - resulting in a meeting which was not
truely representative of local opinion.
The full transcript has not been made available due to it's length and
some specific conversations which are not suitable for publication. Rest
assued that WISA will use all these passages in the battle to keep Wimbledon
FC in South-West London - where it belongs - and where there is massive
public support for a return to our rightful home as proved by the WISA
& Merton Council sponsored ICM poll.
The passages are listed in chronological order - the numbers allocated
were assigned during transcription so they are not in numerical order.
To download the audio for the excerpts, click on the icon next to each
passage, or download the following files containing the TEXT
(RTF, 00.3mb) or ALL MP3 Files
(32mb).
Key:
Charles Koppel :- CK
Matthias Hauger :- MH
Dan Tench :- DT
Attendee :- AT
Items enclosed in '[ ]' are added to the transcript to explain what is
occurring.
Passage
01
0.24mb |
CK: we started a process of discussion
…… with the then leader of Merton Council, forgive me if
I forget his name, Merton Council seem to have a revolving door policy,
because there seems to be a new leader every six months. |
| |
|
Passage
02
0.55mb
|
CK: So given the sensitive nature
of this, especially given it's football, we couldn't exactly go and
talk to our fans and say 'look we'd like to take the club to Milton
Keynes' because of course the reaction was going to be negative and
the press would end up getting involved in a story before there was
a story to kind of publish. So we signed an agreement with Milton
Keynes which was conditional upon permission from the regulatory authorities
and a few other issues, and we then announced the fact that we were
going to look to move the club at some point. |
| |
|
Passage
03
0.16mb |
CK: The transport links - which
are one of the key issues - which are again one of the reasons why
the Safeways planning application was rejected would apply tenfold
to a football club |
| |
|
Passage
04
0.45mb |
CK: so in terms of the demolition
of the site and the building the kind of traffic impact that that
would have but also the delay because whereas a green field site might
take a year a site like that would take two. You can't in effect bring
in all the materials and build in the same way. I think that the cost
of it would be £20 million the cost of acquiring the land would
£15-17 let's say £15 so it would cost us £35 million
pounds which the club doesn't have. |
| |
|
Passage
05
0.40mb |
CK: the moving of the electricity
pylon which we have to occur, the environmental impact on the river
from a stand overhanging the river, and everything tells us that the
travellers would also …. That may not be a bad thing I don't
know but
[noise/laughing]
AT: they would want some money to do it
CK: they would move the travellers as well Merton
Council have said that's not a problem they can move them and , but
again if you go down that … |
| |
|
Passage
06
0.23mb |
CK: This means to us with the
best will in the world, if everyone is in favour and is all doable
and the money is there and everyone supports us we are looking at
maybe three to five years before we know whether it's a yes or a no
- we can't afford to take that chance. |
| |
|
Passage
07
0.61mb |
CK: No, Safeways are, we spoke
to Safeways again it goes back to the whole issue, we started talking
to Safeways in October once we were told by Merton Council that PL
is our solution. And we started speaking to Safeways for. The first
time Andrew Judge ever had a conversation with Safeways was on the
20th December …. Don't forget …. He issued a press statement
saying how Safeways was the solution to our problem. I think Safeways
would sell PL to anyone who would pay the full value - they don't
care if it's us or a residential developer as long as they get the
money. |
| |
|
Passage
08
1.76mb |
AT: the land is only worth what
someone will pay for it - those six housing developers are offering
£10million - as much as Safeways want £15 from you or
anyone else they are not going to get it
CK: Well I mean I agree the issue for is whether
it is £17m or £15m or £10m or £12m
AT: so it's not viable for your Club?
CK: we don't have the money to spend £20
million and even £5 and then £20 to build a stadium and
we are not talking about someone coming in - if we went in with £25
million pounds tomorrow morning and said we want to do it we would
still have to wait for five years for a speculative decision
AT: Surely as a site tho it's a very sort of
short term, I mean future aspirations it does not allow for much
CK: This is something that people don't seem
to share - that you are absolutely right - if we go to that site that
means that in terms of our potential future as a football club are
very very limited. Therefore we cannot actually afford to compete
at the top level in this country because if we go to the premier league
and we are faced with all the associated costs that go with that in
particular the salaries, with a 20,800 seater stadium an all seated
20,800 we would be the smallest club in the premier league by over
50%.
AT: is that the largest stadium that can be
built on that site?
CK: well they claim that it could go up to 25k
but you know we don't see where but I mean
AT: did you see the independent commission set
out by the wimbledon supporters?
AT: See, the premiership standard would be about 40,000
CK: I think that the smallest premier league club today is about 30,000
- so on our 20,000 it would be 50% greater - Craven Cottage will be
35,000 I think it is.
|
| |
|
Passage
09
1.20mb |
AT: Roger Casale makes noises
from time to time about wanting to keep the club here - do you have
any chats with him?
CK: The interesting thing with Roger is that
Roger was very much a part of the process up until June when we issued
the press release on the GHS and he was involved in all the meetings
between the club, as I was saying, and the different groups for our
technical meetings and Roger was very much involved and Andrew Judge,
Roger and myself and WISA we had the Wimbledon Civic Forum were involved
in that as well and when we issued the press release in June which
was signed off by Merton Council and ourselves about the fact that
there is no where in the Borough for the club. Roger Casale took very
much a back seat and he wasn't heard of at all until about three or
four weeks ago - and he got actively involved in the whole process
and I haven't spoken to him since - I think it is very interesting
that he remains quiet and totally out of it for six months before
jumping in at the last moment.
|
| |
|
Passage
10
0.37 |
CK: NO, the reality for the club
today is in effect Milton Keynes or bust - at Selhurst Park it is
absolutely untenable I think we are losing significant amounts of
money at Selhurst Park because we are playing in you know a stadium
where Crystal Palace have played since 1925 - so we have a gate of
5,000 they have a gate of 17,000 |
| |
|
Passage
11
0.39mb |
MH: the important thing I think
which we did put in on the Prince George's Playing Fields was that
there was no public objections, no real residents within a large area
around the fields it is an existing sports site for half the year
on a site we already own - on a small site - how can the council actually
sit there and say well don't worry if you put your application in
you will be fine |
| |
|
Passage
12
0.53mb |
AT: If MK would definitely get
ruled out what would you do - would you go out of business or will
you accept PL?
CK: No we will go out of business
|
| |
|
Passage
13
2.67mb |
CK: on the first issue Beddington
Lane if we go back thru I am going to step back if you don't mind
Merton Council late 80's conservatives, gave planning permission to
WFC to build a stadium in Wandle Valley - that the election was subsequently
won by Labour, who withdrew their support, and they withdrew their
support if I am correct on the basis that as part of their election
campaign they wanted to build a nature park on that site they won
the election and therefore in order to build their nature park they
had to withdraw their support for the football stadium. What they
said to the club at the time was go to Beddington Lane and we will
support you in going to Beddington Lane. At the time Beddington Lane
was part of Merton council but subsequently there was a realignment
of the boundaries and Beddington Lane fell into Sutton - Beddington
Lane is now not part of Merton
AT: that is not how I recall it - no - no- no
- no
Wandle Valley was turned down by they conservatives - when they suggested
Beddington Lane - now that was - Beddington Lane was suggested when
there was the change over of the councils. Now Siobhan McDonagh …….
|
| |
|
Passage
14
0.69mb |
AT: We don't have enough parking
spaces for ourselves - we would be inundated and also don't forget
we actually fought for ten years against Safeway on the grounds of
pollution and transport - too many cars coming into the area - so
with that scenario it would be much worse that it is now |
| |
|
Passage
15
1.06
|
AT: [Conversation about transport
for football being different from Safeway traffic/transport. Tramlink
not going to happen … ] |
| |
|
Passage
16
0.54mb |
CK: You cannot take a football
club that has 120 year odd history and in terms of the obligations
we have and just if you like put in on the roulette wheel on the basis
that merton council will say maybe black will come up or maybe it
will be red - but why don't you - we are absolutely convinced it's
black - we cannot afford to do that - we cannot afford to allow the
club in effect fold because we are denied an opportunity and a future
because someone playing politics. |
| |
|
Passage
17
0.53mb |
CK: One of the reasons why it
was so important for us to have the opportunity to get together is
because your views are not heard by anyone - they were - but you speak
to anyone who is involved in this process with us at the moment -
you would be thinking that if we announce tomorrow that we are coming
back you will all be in the streets with champagne everyone would
you know - the joy would overflow - and that there is no one at all
in South London who is hostile to this. |
| |
|
Passage
18
1.63mb |
AT: is there anything practical
we can do to make this - you know
CK: I think there is certainly a lot that could
assist us - and you raise this issue which is the second issue which
is our arbitration process - in terms of the arbitration we - Dan
you'll stop me if I say something I'm not supposed to - cos Dan has
been advising us on the process - obviously what happens in an arbitration
is that both sides put their story forward and an independent arbitration
panel will look at it and adjudicate on who is if you like the fairest
or most just story or cause… obviously Merton council contribute
to this process because we know we are putting in - that we do not
believe that PL is deliverable within the planning frameworks - despite
the financial arguments but from a planning perspective from an infrastructure,
transport and everything else we say we don't believe it's achievable
and Merton council go "yes it is". I think what would be
very very useful is the process by which would add witness statements
and I think it is a possibility of two or three of yourselves providing
us with witness statements to say for example: that history that WFC
would have been playing in Merton if wasn't for Labour - Beddington
Lane - I think it is a very strong point that no one has ever made
and we certainly didn't I know.
|
Passage
19
0.33mb |
AT: [Converstaion about the value
of the land - the sale of the land to Safeway and the condition of
the site over the past ten years - usage of the land - they want something
on it that would be part of the community] |
| |
|
Passage
20
0.20mb |
CK: That is why it is so important
because you have been involved in this for ten years - you know more
about the process and the history than Andrew Judge does, never mind
ourselves |
| |
|
Passage
48
0.52mb |
DT: I think prior to arbitration.
there is a likelihood that if you nail it quite hard now because WISA
are just obsessed by it they can't get it out of their thick....they
will not listen to reason and they will just go on and on and on about
it to a ridiculous extent and they think they can have a whip round
amongst fans which is going to make a significant contribution
AT: You only got about 4000 registered fans
DT: Yes - it comes out at about £20,000 per fan including the
kids it's definitely not going to work that's their level of obsession |
| |
|
Passage
21
0.64mb |
DT: we need a convincing document
that we can use in our arbitration and then you can use in other situations
- a statement, perhaps from you, representing the whole of the association,
but in addition I wonder if we could have a resolution passed tonight
and signed by everybody and everybody can put their name, I mean this
is a very impressive turnout here, and there are 25 people here, and
you can talk about the general, and there must be lots of other people
you know, a resolution that says in no uncertain terms that you think
that the PL site is inappropriate and you will complete this |
| |
|
Passage
22
0.21mb |
AT: there are only two [Residents
Associations - reply to question from CK] represented here - Wimbledon….
that is you're not representing….- Wimbledon Park - yeah, you
are the chair and HBRA |
| |
|
Passage
23
0.06mb
|
DT: I think everyone here will
want to sign witness statements |
| |
|
Passage
24
0.60mb |
AT: [Chair of Wimbledon Park Residents
Association] I cannot just sign something on behalf of my association
because (a) they haven't discussed it and (b) this is an emotional
issue - I mean the support you have got from the fans whilst they
may not be huge in number is quite significant and in terms of the
emotional value of the issue which is your main problem it tends to
be quite difficult to counteract that. Logically, I think you, I mean
I don't know when your arbitration is going to take place
AT: end of January |
| |
|
Passage
25
0.25mb |
CK: I think that in terms of the
witness statements I think that the witness statement is more about
a history if you like a catalogue of events of what happened as opposed
to representing your |
| |
|
Passage
26
0.07mb
|
DT: With the arbitration itself
- we might want to ask you to issue a press release if you can |
| |
|
Passage
27
0.27mb |
CK: The other group who would
be very interested in talking to yourselves is the London Tonight,
the news, because they are following this very closely, because obviously
for them it is a local story and they did phone me up and ask if I
would do something this with them this week…. |
| |
|
Passage
28
0.61mb |
DT: I mean, you need to have a
spokesman who I imagine will be you, and you need to have a clear
idea what it is you're going say…errr….so, I mean the key
thing is to sound reasonable and er, you know, certainly the tone,
we try to sound, which is genuine. It's more in sorrow than in anger,
but it's just not a suitable place for a football stadium, it would
be lovely if it was, and it's not, and there are these enormous problems
with it.
CK: If I was in your position I would be angry
I would not be sorry. You know.
AT: We're dreadfully sorry
[loud laughter]
|
| |
|
Passage
29
0.53mb |
AT: I'm sorry you can't be at
St. Georges fields it's a lovely place and there isn't so many houses
round there
CK: We did suggest that to Merton Council because
we own the land we bought St Georges playing fields it's the most
appropriate site in the borough for a stadium excellent transport
links it's off the A3 fast train and everything else
AT: Have you had any objections from the groups
around there when you put your application in
|
| |
|
Passage
30
0.77mb |
AT: ……on the arbitration
I mean to what extent is local opinion….as far as the arbitration
the Football League it's you against the Football League
CK: Correct
AT: Has there been anything like this before?
DT: We're making this up as we go along
CK: This is the first and and the difficulty is obviously the Football
League in their defence will call on people like Merton Council and
others it's the way in which you make up your case in effect is to
get witness statements to say, you know, you can do this or you can't
do that and, you know, we on the one side we're saying we can't go
back to Plough Lane despite the fact that we can't afford it and here's
our planning expert who tells us we can't, we'll never get it, and
you know, Merton Council says don't worry about the planning expert
as long as the council support it it's no problem
|
| |
|
Passage
31
0.32mb |
CK: That's a very very important
point what is vital is that Merton Council went and said to Safeways
you can have the site, you can build on it we support it fantastic
encouraged them to buy it and then yet look what happens, ten years
later despite all of that they turn their back |
| |
|
Passage
32
1.36mb |
AT: I tell you we can …….the
people on London planning because we could see…..we need [Name
unclear] she might be able to do that because she's actually doing
the football for Arsenal and she's been you know guiding us and she
said if you're having problems, probably the same officer.…because
you again we told her about it and maybe she might be able to do that
CK: And I think what's also incredibly important
about what's come out this evening is to think that the tram is going
to be operational within eighteen months and, you know, by Christmas
of next year we're going to have the best linked community in the
whole of London
|
| |
|
Passage
33
1.29mb |
AT: Can I just say something.
There just seems to me in terms of strategy…this whole question
of the history and exposing the weakness of the council is probably
the, most important thing you can do to present your case I mean obviously
you need supplementary help like planning aid or people who can support
what you've already said but if you can actually undermine the credibility
of the council which I think you can do very satisfactorily with the
history of what's wrong here then that would be the most potent thing
to erm present
DT: I think that's right I also think that what's
very powerful is the fact that you will just oppose the planning….there's
no sense of that in the documents submitted by Merton the fact that
there are nearly thirty of you here already with one success so Safeway
went away bleeding….now here you are again saying that you will
at every turn oppose this planning err application and that I think
casts a very different colour on all Merton's documents
AT: And it's basically on the same grounds as
Safeway
DT: Yes and in some ways even more vehemently
I mean it's interesting to hear you say
AT: Transport and environmental issues which
is what we basically won on
|
| |
|
Passage
34
1.49mb |
CK: Well there's no doubt….I've
seen the opposite side as well which is now in Milton Keynes because
I've never been to an environment which is so supportive from the
council through to the residents because they've been preparing for
about three years, you know, in terms of the planning and getting
the residents involved and everything else and the site they've chosen
happens to be a very appropriate site with no houses around it and
of course the dual carriageway around the entire site is isolated
by dual carriageway and just off the motorway and, you know, you look
at what they've done and you can understand why it can move forward
because the most powerful element in any of this is the residents
and Milton Keynes addressed the residents before the planning issue
and once dealing with the residents they then adopted the planning
framework and UDP but, you know, Merton Council is doing exactly the
opposite they're just sitting there saying we don't really care about
anyone else and I raised this issue because…..with Andrew Judge
if you look at the planning framework in Merton, Milton Keynes has
for years had in their planning framework a directive if you like
to build a stadium that it was their intention at some point to put
a stadium……nowhere in the UDP in Merton does it say anything
about football and the government issued guidelines in the early '90's
if you want to have a football club in your borough and you're looking
to upgrade the ground this is what you need to include this language
in your planning framework they never did |
| |
|
Passage
38
0.69mb |
DT: I think, when he drew up his
UDP it made no provision for a football stadium |
| |
|
Passage
39
1.74mb |
CK: The problem is when you have
a leader who comes out and says this is doable the difficulty is you
give people an easy option to…….you know, you're going to
arbitration or when even we put the application to the Football League
board, you're putting forward an application that people don't really
want to have to make a decision on it is a very very difficult decision
for people to make and it's understandably so because they're worried
about all sorts of potential repercussions and, you know, football
supporters are not necessarily the kind of people you want sitting
on your doorstep and there is a concern about….the repercussion
as opposed to whether it's right or wrong and therefore given an out
it's a wonderful way to, you know, not to take responsibility for
a decision, you can say ah! they can go home, Merton is a possibility
and as long as it remains a possibility why do we even need to contemplate
Milton Keynes and if you like, that's the very grey area that you
get into. I think that Andrew Judge, he knows that. Andrew Judge in
his heart of hearts knows that Wimbledon Football Club can never come
back to Merton. I believe that, and I told him that. But he's in a
no lose position at the moment because we're not putting in a planning
application he knows we could never afford to buy the land so therefore
he's never going to be challenged so no matter what he says publicly
about us coming back and him delivering the land and everything else
he's never going to be tested because we can't afford to do it and
yet he ingratiates himself with, you know, the attention of the public
about how he's trying to do all this for the borough and for Wimbledon
and he's never going to be taken to task and therefore he's on a no
lose. |
| |
|
Passage
40
3.71mb |
CK: Well, you've had this discussion
with the Wimbledon Civic Forum recently, erm, and, it's a very odd
relationship because, erm, if you take PGPF, when we applied for our
academy on that site and again we asked the council for financial
assistance in terms of residential development the site is 34 acres
and if you take away the David Lloyd - excluding David Lloyd it's
34 acres - and we said to them could we get residential planning permission
on six acres in order to fund the development of the academy and also
run community programmes on the site….undoubtedly of great benefit
to the borough that at least Andrew Judge keeps on talking about the
value of Wimbledon Football Club's community programmes, we could
have orchestrated and managed them out of that site. They turned us
down flat. Absolutely flat. Wimbledon Civic Forum issue a press release
saying, we're extremely pleased that Merton Council rejected the club's
proposal, erm, to put any housing on that site because we're completely
against it however we now fear for the future of the club and whether
they'll be able to survive….to me that's such a contradictory
statement, you know on the one hand there they are in all these meetings
with us fighting for the club to say you have to do this and the minute
we're turned down something like that, well this could be the end
of the club as we know it, but actually we support that, and…..I've
never been able to fathom where Wimbledon Civic Forum are actually
coming from.
AT:……Roger Casale
AT: Also you have to question our representatives in Wimbledon Civic
Forum anyway
CK: Well, they did a survey in order to show
us the support for the club coming back into Merton and they did a
survey and said you know 82% of people, you know, want the club to
come back to the borough and this that and the other and we said,
well how many letters did you send out they sent out…..they only
got eighty replies
AT: We didn't get anything….that's the
first thing we said, they didn't ask us
AT: Nothing came to the resident's association which would be one
of their direct lines of communication.
[group conversation]
CK: This is exactly the issue. They will only
poll, you know, who they…….we could all do it. You can all
go out and conduct market research.
AT: Well they probably sent it to Wimbledon
supporters…..they've probably got your membership and sent it
to them.
|
| |
|
| |
CK:…….The other thing
is people said you don't market the club properly and you have all
this opportunity, I mean over the summer we sent out 75 000 leaflets
to households inserted with the Wimbledon Guardian, now…
AT: We don't get the Guardian
AT: That's part of the problem the Guardian doesn't get delivered
[laughter]
AT: Any issues on this area our Guardians dry up (general chatter)
CK: We sent out 75 000 and we had two enquiries and no sales
AT: Really?
CK: Yes, two enquiries and no sales on 75 000
leaflets and these
AT: Are you sure they were delivered?
CK: Well they, as sure as we're ever going to
be. They signed…..to say that they were all delivered and……and
we're offering £50 season tickets for families in the new family
enclosure with kids and what have you, kind of separated from the
football element if you like, the traditional football element and
we got two enquiries
|
| |
|
Passage
41
0.48mb
|
DT: I've drafted a resolution
can I read it out…. 'We consider that the plough lane site is
an inappropriate place for a new stadium for Wimbledon Football Club…..application
must be submitted to Merton Borough Council for such a stadium we
would…..ensure it would be rejected. Indeed our objections to
a football stadium on the site are even greater than those to Safeway's
proposal for retail development there which… |
| |
|
Passage
43
0.58mb
|
AT: …the arguments that we
used on transport or traffic and pollution are now double, treble,
quadruple because Agenda 21 is kicking in locally and that any arguments
will be redoubled on that score….it's really putting into action
the Rio Summit proposals on a local level and councils are now signed
up to support this and things like traffic pollution, air pollution
are now they're having to measure traffic pollution…… |
| |
|
Passage
44
0.64mb |
CK: …..phenominal you've
fought for ten years to defeat something and now people are walking
around saying
AT: These are families around here, just families with children
CK: That's the kind of thing that you need to
tell London Tonight if they come and see you. That's the kind of thing
you've gotta tell people I mean you know, we opposed the Safeway application,
for ten years we fought against it, now the thought of football coming
back people are starting…..
|
| |
|
Passage
45
1.09mb |
[group conversation about house
prices, matchdays when the ground was in use and how much better the
police control was when Wimbledon were in the "Premier Division",
how bad it was in the "1st division"]
CK: Yeah, there is…..very little policing
AT: We're not going to have this problem……….unless
you sell the club to someone who is gonna buy the land for money that
you say…….there's nothing to worry about
CK: No, I mean in fairness no you don't have
anything to worry about…
AT: But you would like our help
CK: But you might as well….
|
| |
|
Passage
46
1.03mb |
CK: …..you're taking on
in effect people who are looking at the history of the game and saying
well….you know we're happy with things we don't want things to
change, you know, you get, we have four-and-and-half thousand season
ticket holders and members and you get, we've got probably a thousand….who
are quite vociferous about you know the fact, and the funny thing
is when the club left Plough Lane and went to Selhurst Park we had
one-thousand two hundred, so most of our season ticket holders have
never been to Plough Lane and know nothing about it
AT: How many of your players played at Plough
Lane?
CK: Only one
[group conversation]
CK: Neal Ardley
[group conversation about Neal Ardley]
AT: So all this comeback ...fans, no, players no, management, No
[laughter]
AT: So who is coming back?
CK: We do have some staff…..who came from
the original and the mere thought of coming back frightens the living
daylights out of them
[laughter]
|
Passage
47
0.18mb |
AT: The key thing that's plain
from what you said is what we've got to turn around is that the supporter's
association had the focal point, they had the publicity, and now we
have to change that….. |