Supporters start backing new ground

Hamlet fans have been sending letters to the local press, in support of the new ground. Here's what they have been saying...

With the planning application now in with Southwark Council some Dulwich Hamlet fans have been trying to rectify some of what they perceive as ‘half-truths’ from those opposed to the development of our new stadium, which would ensure the sustainable future of our Club.

Two weeks ago, in the ‘Southwark News’ lifelong Dulwich Hamlet fan Liam Hickey, who has been following The Hamlet for almost half a century & is currently one of the supporters who are serving on the Football Club Committee, responded to an article that gave the angle of the ‘Friends of Greendale’. This is what he had to say:

I read your letter from Friends of Greendale last week, and was pretty much disgusted by just how disingenuous and negative this campaign is shaping up to be.
I have been heavily involved in the club for more than 20 years, and have seen this club through good and (very) bad times. This represents a solid grounding for our club, for years to come- and there are a number of inaccuracies that we can only see as deliberate, and misleading. We all know that Hadley came through when we were about to fold-but that isn’t the central point here. We are talking about the future, and this is a project that we at DHFC have worked quite closely with the developers on.
Forgive my ignorance, but in what way have the Friends of Greendale been good neighbours to DHFC? To date, DHFC (through Hadley) have paid for the works that they have wanted to see on site and perhaps it has been forgotten that when the site was purchased, and the lease passed over to the developers, one of the ways to increase income for the Dulwich Hamlet would have been to simply build more pitches on Greendale-something which was perfectly within the terms of the lease, and actually what Southwark intended when the original planning permission was granted. After all, Greendale was once just ILEA playing fields. This was dismissed by Hadley, who were more than happy to work with the Friends group, despite the financial pressure placed on them. As far as we can see, this has been a one-way relationship which has not benfitted anyone but the Friends in the slightest.
There is also the point about a ‘stadium’ being on Metropolitan Open Land. There is a club facility being built on land owned by the developer, NEXT TO the MOL, a pitch laid where one exists on it, and a green wall for the ground which never stands higher that 2.6 metres above the ground level. In what way will this impact on the openness of the land? Is there really no flexibility for something which is a) clearly needed, and b) looks to be perfectly valid development, planning wise? Even if there is a sporting provision built, why shouldn’t this take place? There are a number of precedents of sporting facilities being built on MOL. This is a perfectly valid use. The club would never support residential development on MOL, and are very proud of the part that we have played in the ‘feel’ and ‘atmosphere’ that Dulwich has as a whole-but the idea that a sunken pitch where one stands already, with less and lower floodlights than those that exist there, represents any significant change seems myopic, self-serving and inflexible.
As far as it seems, from across the other side of the stadium wall, there is very little in the Friends of Greendale approach to anything but the prevention of anyone using the fields for anything bar their dog walking and nature days. Why don’t they want to see any play provision for teenagers and young adults?
Again-this is something which the neighbourhood needs and could be provided by the borough and the development as a whole. The whole thing seems as if it is based on a position of self-interest, and is miles away from what the club needs, the fans want and the neighbourhood as a whole requires.

Liam Hickey, Committee Member of Dulwich Hamlet Football Club.

Last Thursday there was another letter responding to the negative piece from the Friends of Greendale, by Andrew Tucker, a Hamlet fan since the Nineties; and one of those who was involved in the founding of our Supporters’ Trust at the turn of the century:

It was disappointing to see the slightly hysterical reaction from the Friends of Green Dale in the Southwark News to the proposed new stadium for Dulwich Hamlet and the various benefits it will bring to the local community.
I have always been slightly bemused by a small minority’s seeming emotional attachment to what has, for as long as I can remember, been a quasi-derelict piece of land used for little more than dogwalking and, certainly until relatively recently, drug use.
Perhaps a few facts might help bring a little perspective. The new stadium will not extend beyond where the current pitch actually sits. Of course it may be that the Friends of Green Dale prefer a derelict astro-turf pitch but I’m pretty sure they would not be supported by the majority of local residents. The stadium will not encroach on to the current ‘green space’ and will provide opportunities for it to become a genuine asset to the community.
The designs propose new access pathways that have not previously been there for the rest of Green Dale. Access has previously only been available because people have pulled down fences to what is technically a closed off area!
If Friends of Green Dale are genuinely keen to promote access to the area, they should be supporting the development.
The suggestion that Green Dale be retained for wildlife is, quite frankly, devoid from the reality of what exists.
Why, for example, no play space? It’s clearly needed in the local area and will provide real benefits to young people locally. The connection to the ASPIRE academy will only enhance these, providing opportunities for local children that will otherwise not exist.
Dulwich Hamlet has increasingly over the past few years operated as a genuine community club, and this stadium will only enhance that. The genuine chance for Green Dale to finally be an area in use, a green space that benefits everybody should not be missed.

Andrew Tucker, via email.