David Davies: Ill-Informed or Malevolent?
Tom Greatrex, Chair of the Fulham Supporters Trust, gives Boardroom Blues his thoughts on what David Davies said at last month’s Fans Forum.
I was interested to read the comments made by QPR Chief Executive David Davies at a recent fans’ forum. During the course of his remarks, he expressed a number of opinions on a range of subjects. I am in no position to offer informed comment on most of what he said, but if his supposedly factual and informed answers to questions about the status of Fulham Football Club’s current planning application are anything to go by then I would urge caution in taking much of what he says seriously. So that all those who have a passing interest in these matters are fully informed, I have outlined the current position regarding Craven Cottage and 2004/05 season and corrected some of the impressions which Mr Davies’ remarks may have given you.
“My understanding is that Fulham are going back to Craven Cottage to a ground as it stands today and they need planning permission for the changes they want to make.”
Fulham intend to return to Craven Cottage for the start of the 2004/05 season. To comply with the Taylor Report, the ground needs to be all-seater. As the stadium stands, it has two stands and the front portion of one stand that are entirely terraced. Basically, Fulham are improving the facilities at the Cottage to comply with the Taylor Report along the lines of a scheme first outlined in public by the Fulham Supporters’ Trust. This involves bolting seats on to a stepped structure on to the existing terraces. As this does not involve any new structures, this does not require planning permission, although will require to be granted a Safety Certificate by the local authority. The work which requires planning permission is extending the roof of the Hammersmith End, erecting new floodlight pylons and putting a roof over the Putney End. The majority of the work can go ahead without planning permission, and as anybody who goes past the ground can see for themselves that work has commenced, as can anybody who looks for the floodlight pylons from across the river at Putney or Hammersmith Bridge.
“There are residents groups in Fulham that are not going to lie down and allow the club to build whatever they want. Not without a thorough investigation into what it is they’re intending to do…”
A small number of residents frustrated the planning process for a redevelopment of Craven Cottage which would have seen a 30,000 stadium built there. However, it is wrong to suggest that residents stopped this development. Fulham achieved planning permission for that stadium in February 2001, and completed the section 106 agreement in May 2001. From that point on, they were entitled to go ahead and commence building. Legal challenges could not stop that, and in any case, the residents were beaten at every turn. The re-writing of history suggests that Fulham were stopped by residents, when the reality is that it was the Club’s decision (driven by financial considerations) not to build, but they did not express this until after the final legal challenge had failed. A cynic might suggest that they were hoping to blame the residents.
However, in the course of the planning process for a much larger development, those in opposition repeatedly stated that they had no objection to either Fulham Football Club per se, or the stadium as it stood. As the ground is essentially the same, they have been hamstrung by their own earlier comments, and are not organising any real opposition. The type of investigation Davies was referring to is an environmental impact assessment, which Fulham produced for the earlier planning permission. As there are no substantial new structures being built, and the previous permission exists as a precedent, there is no requirement for any such statement in this situation. Additionally, there is no right of appeal for objectors in this application, so if the Council gives it the go-ahead, it is then up to the Club to get on with it. That much of the preparatory work (not requiring permission) has begun suggests they intend to complete the work on it.
“I know that the planning process is long, it’s arduous and I expect there to be objections, and on that basis what we’re talking about is really only five months to the end of the season and actually only ten months to the beginning of next season, and to do what they’re planning takes an awful lot of building”
For the reasons outlined above, the planning process is not long and arduous for this application, largely because most of the work does not need permission, and there is not any scope for objections to hamper work. What is being done does not require an awful lot of building (it is putting seats on terraces, replacing old floodlight pylons with new ones (the old ones have already gone) and extending a roof) – the actual work required could be done in a matter of weeks. Contractors have been engaged, and are doing the preparatory work, and the pitch has been re-laid and protected in advance of building. The work needs to be completed by July, to ensure a safety certificate in time for the start of the 2004/05 season in August. That is perfectly achievable, and does not require an awful lot of building.
“I would not be surprised to see them playing some of their games here next year”
I am not sure for the motive for this statement – possibly to arrest fears of how the gap in QPR’s finances without tenancy money is going to be filled. It is, however, hugely unlikely. Firstly, as outlined above, there is no reason why the work will take very long. Secondly, the planning committee of the Council will consider the application at their meeting on 16 December. Thirdly, if Fulham are not relegated, there will have to be considerable work done to Loftus Road to enable it to stage Premiership football. That will in itself present time constraints. Fourthly, as trivial as it may first seem, Al Fayed does not like Loftus Road. In the unlikely event that there were to be any problem with Craven Cottage, it is more likely that Fulham will seek some dispensation to play a few fixtures somewhere else. I would be surprised to see Fulham playing their games anywhere else but Craven Cottage next season.
Previously, David Davies has suggested that the return to Craven Cottage was a PR stunt to appease fans and football authorities, and there would be “difficulties” which could not be resolved and then Fulham would have to stay at Loftus Road. Having spent most of the last year investigating, questioning and lobbying various parties on what is happening to Craven Cottage, I am confident that this is patent nonsense. Either he has been misinformed, is not up to date or has another reason for making such statements. What happens in the long run, what the owners of the Dairy Crest site do with their valuable land (and I can’t see how it would be in their interest to use it to build a football stadium when much more money can be made from retail and office development) and whether both QPR and Fulham still exist in three years time are uncertain issues and therefore liable to speculation. On those issues David Davies could very well be proved to be right – but on the immediate future of Craven Cottage his comments at the fans’ forum were at best ill-informed and at worst malevolent.
Related links
Fans Forum: What Davies Said
http://www.boardroomblues.co.uk/forum.htm
Fulham Supporters Trust
http://www.backtothecottage.co.uk/
<<< BACK TO NEWS AND VIEWS MENU >>>