Trevor - Thank you for finally putting this ’urban myth’ to bed.

George Orwell in 1984 wrote about the lie being repeated so often that the lie then becomes the truth. The ?what have Liverpool City Council ever done for Everton? line you often read in the ToffeeWeb mailbag beggars belief. The Kings Dock was, unequivocally, the premier real estate location in the city and LCC hung about for two years waiting for Everton FC to substantiate their part of the deal. What more could they do? Kenwright?s position should have been untenable after that fiasco, a small detail that wasn?t lost on Mr Gregg, but unfortunately ?Blue Bill? was able to pull out his hat the ?I mortgaged my house for the club I love? line and the rest is history.

Chinese whispers, I know, but if Mr Henshaw did actually say "I never want to deal with these amateurs again", who could blame him.

I still get angry when I drive past the arena, and I find it amazing that Kenwright came out unscathed. I honestly believe that if Kirkby goes tits up (Please God), the Yes voters will not attach any blame on Kenwright ? it will be the council or Bully or even the No voters' fault.

Forgive me for being confused but aren't there a number of notable ?no? supporters who swear blind that LCC approached LFC first? I could be wrong but isn't the great Greg Murphy one of them? I dont know who to believe ? Trevor Skemptom or Greg Murphy. Greg did an article last year titled ?Too Late to cry? which chronicled events which showed that LFC were approached first. So who is either lying or just plain wrong out of Skemptom and Murphy?

For his birthday my son got an enthralling coffee table book entitled ?History?s Worst Decisions?. If someone troubles themselves to write ?Football?s Worst Decisions?, there?ll obviously be a chapter ?The Kings Dock fiasco?. Kings Dock would have seen us on prime inner city waterfront ? yes, we and we alone would actually have been in the CITY where everyone (yes including Norwegians and all the other fair weather friends that the other lot attracts from elsewhere) wants to be before and after the game, and the shite would still be out there in the burbs. It?s just so sad to be now looking at Kirkby...

And people still come on here complaining about the amount of stick "Blue Bill" gets.

It makes you despondent at times.

As a good Catholic lad, I never thought would ever say this, but, Long Live King Billy. This guy has done more for Everton Football Club, in the last 20yrs, than anyone else.
Bill you are a true Evertonian who has done your best on behalf of he club. I read, daily, the diatribe from so called Everton supporters who berate you daily/weekly, yet have no alternative. Bill, you have chucked your money in, and for that I thank you, others haven’t. You, I believe have the clubs interest at heart.
EFC&BILL4EVA

Tony Marks

If you are gullible enough to believe in a God then I can see you are gullible enough to believe Bull-shit Billy I suppose.

The man is nothing but a fan lucky and rich enough to own our beloved club - I say owning as he certainly isn’t capable of leading or running one.

The man is an idiot - a well-meaning fellow blue but an idiot of the first order who sholudn’t be anywhere near the decision-making process of our club

When are we ever going to stop crying over this particular drop of spilt milk, Yes, it was the chance of a lifetime - especially when you see the eventuall alternative

KD really was the "deal of the century" but the board cocked it up, we can't turn back the clock.

Stop it guys, its just too painful.

He might not be the strongest leader in Football, but he has invested what he can and found outside investment whenever possible.
Most of all he brought in Moyes and stuck by him when a lot of fans called for his head a couple of years ago.
Under Bills leadership without Gregg we have gone from relegation contenders to european contenders.
He mightn't be able to take us much further but thank him for where he has brought us so far.

Yeah he?s like the gobshite uncle every family has.... oh how you'll laugh when uncle gobshite Billy leads us to Kirkby like the Pied Piper.... Get a grip, he?s not capable and clueless and so out of touch with reality he should be sectioned for even half of his Walter Mitty fantasy tales.

Anton

"He might not be the strongest leader in Football"?

Leader ? I suggest you look up what the word means. He is no more a leader than I am a world-class centre forward. He doesn?t kead, he follows ? he is a sycophant who tries to please his inner circle so they fawn all over him. Being a blue simply isn?t enough to lead and direct this once great and proud club.

Read what he said to ESCLA in another post on here and tell me if he displays one ounce of leadership ? he is a lying bastard.

He told ESCLA that no-ne wants to invest into EFC because we are in the same city as Liverpool FC and in the same breath he then says he has had calls from Rome, Dubai, Norway and America ? calls to tell him what?

Hi there, Bill ? just calling from Rome/Dubai/Norway/America to say I don?t want to buy into EFC?

The man is a fantasist ? very dangerous to have as Chairman. Sooner he and Wyness fuck off and let a real leader in the better.

The sad thing is it seems there is little any of us can do as we see these charlatans take us on this path to self-destruction. The fact that our own chairman abdicates any responsibility for knowing the important details on the biggest potential change in our history is ALARMING to me. When is the EGM happening? If I was shareholder I?d be calling for a vote of no confidence. Other than shareholders, what can ordinary fans do?

The thing is when are some of our fellow blues going to stop ignoring the proven lies?
Jay pointed out on another thread the long list: Fortress, £50Mill for Rooney, etc. And Tom Hughes has numerous times told us that if you feel like it take a trip down the city planning office and see how planning application enquiries for redevelopment of Goodison, Stanley Park and any other city relocation have never existed despite the chairman and his sidekick forever telling us likewise. Let's all have our views but don't ignore such blatant lies.

If BK has Everton in his heart, why does he want to be the man known for moving Everton out of Liverpool? It's our home and has been for over 130 years. He has no love for Everton, what he is doing is moving to sell. He wants to make MONEY and leave us in the shit.

Patrick Dodds: Just plain old Greg Murphy will do. Cheers.

I don?t "swear blind" about LCC offering Kings Dock to LFC first because it?s not an issue that requires that much emphasis. In the great scheme of things, the matter of LFC and the King?s Dock holds no more importance than that of a passing anecdote of history now nine years old.
Basically, it boils down to what you / we / I / Trevor mean by the word "offered". My conviction, based on my memories and personal chronicles from spring 2000, is that the extent of the "offer" from LCC to LFC probably lasted no more than a phone call, or perhaps a two-minute conversation over some fine finger food at bash that both Rick Parry and David Henshaw / Mike Storey attended.

My information is that Rick Parry dismissed the idea of LFC at the KD out-of-hand, unequivocally, never to be considered again at the very first time of asking, simply because the stadium capacity could never be more than 55,000. That?s not what LFC were looking for. Remember, they?d been looking at sites in Speke and Knowsley because they wanted at least a 60,000 stadium.

I?ve never suggested that LFC and LCC ever got to the stage of round table negotiations concerning KD. As I said last year in Too Late to Cry (and the irony is not lost on me that yet another year has passed), the immediate instinct of all at LCC circa 1999/2000 when considering the wider aspects of a stadium of KD was that LFC (the club, the brand, the whole global thing) would be the perfect fit. Let?s face it: why would they think anything else? It was perfect for them. The city was crying out for a stadium at KD. LFC were looking to move. The stars were moving perfectly into alignment.

Surely no-one believes that the LCC execs originally considered EFC for the KD ahead of LFC? Even if I didn?t know what I do know, I?d find it hard to belive that Parry didn?t get at least a whisper or a nod from the Town Hall regarding KD.

Crucially, it has to be remembered that LCC knew full well that LFC had the cash. Whereas, since the true state of our finances had emerged following the sale of Duncan Ferguson in November 1998 and the protracted 13-month takeover by BK, it was known by everyone, especially LCC, that EFC didn?t have a proverbial pot, let alone the £30m or so required to come to the KD table.

If someone wants to do an audit trail to test the veracity of my assertion that LFC were considered for KD ahead of Everton, then a good point to start would be to look at the incredibly strange ? and pretty bloody quick ? turn of events on both sides of Stanley Park from May through to June and July of 2000. Bill Kenwright was still undeniably pressing ahead with a desire to redevelop GP until at least Easter 2000. Fact.

Suddenly, in a meeting at Goodison Park with Goodison For-Everton (GFE) in late spring 2000, ostensibly to continue discussions about redeveloping Goodison (most pointedly the desire for us to acquire a small portion of Stanley Park in front of the club store), BK did a complete volte-face and asked us how we?d feel if we instead moved to KD. Our immediate response ? to a man, unrehearsed, because we were completely blindsided ? was that if, sadly, we were to be blocked on the plans to redevelop GP then sure KD would be a great consolation.

Also, we put it to BK that surely the KD would be earmarked for LFC? His straining answer to this was "but if there was a chance that weeeee could get it, would you support the move?" Make of that response what you will. We told him that we would indeed support the KD project if GP was blocked: because the much misunderstood position of the GFE from the very start was that we would never block the club if it was proved, emphatically, that we couldn?t redevelop at L4 4EL. We said that to PJ at meeting one in spring 1997.

We did, though, immediately query with BK as to how we could possibly finance KD because we (naively) assumed, at that point, that we would be pursuing sole ownership of a stadium there (we didn?t know the nuances of the multi-layered partnership structure at that point) and we were visualising scary figures of £200m or so (as opposed to the carefully phased financing of a piece-meal redevelopment of GP). At this point Arthur Abercromby interjected and said "well, we?d rather not go into that just yet but we wouldn?t need nearly as much as you?d think."

That was the very last time that the GFE met with BK. We left that meeting knowing full well that the GFE-Ward-McHugh plan for redeveloping Goodison Park had suddenly become a dead letter and that it was obviously all systems go behind the scenes at EFC for KD. BK was already pushing his "Banks of the Royal Blue Mersey picture postcard" line.

Despite what is believed ? and was inacurrately reported by David Prentice as recently as last summer (for which he later issued an apology in print) ? the GFE never opposed KD. Our pragmatic stance was that the club should only devote so much time to a project if it knew for certain that it could complete on the project. For we feared that several more years could pass and we could eventually find ourselves returning to square one and back to the drawing board (this is all on record in back issues of the Echo).

Amazingly, within weeks of that meeting, Rick Parry announced ? to the astonishment of many kopites it has to be said, who were preparing to block moves to Speke etc - that LFC had suddenly found its favoured site for a new Anfield. That?s when he issued his famous uber-Parry "it was under our noses all along" tongue-in-cheek line about Stanley Park.

Parry knew what had happened. Henshaw and Storey did also. And crucially so did BK which is why he never, ever bleated about us being denied access to SP and LFC being granted far more than we?d ever dared to request (however informally).

Everything else is as I stated in Too Late to Cry on here a year ago.
It really doesn?t bother me whether people believe my records or not. I know what I know because I was there. But LFC were most certainly the first consideration (sic) by LCC for KD. Possibly it amounted to no more than a hopeful punt on the part of LCC but they were sounded out way before EFC gleefully came to the KD table.

Personally, I actually find it hard to believe ? given all that we know and hate about how skewed this whole city is when it comes to matters of EFC and LFC ? that some Evertonians don?t believe that LCC first considered LFC to be the occupants of its shiny new, iconic, wall-to-wall Liver Bird liveried waterfront stadium. I mean, let?s face it, it hardly stretches the imagination does it?

I’m with Greg Murphy on this one and his explanation, not Skemptom. Greg was there at the centre of the action at the time. Greg I remembered your "Too late to cry" article from last year too, a very good piece that I suspect was the REAL truth.

Well, I?d hate this to become a Greg Murphy v Trevor Skempton scenario because I?ve got far too much respect for Blues like Trevor and Tom Hughes who have been pivotal in the ground move/stay debate over the last year especially.

Paradoxically, Trevor and I are not too far apart concerning LFC and King?s Dock; for it is entirely true, as Trevor states, that EFC (Houston) only acquired its preferred developer status after a hard-fought bidding process. That bidding process, which began in earnest after EFC achieved a mandate from Evertonians to move to the KD in November 2000, was something LFC never got as far. Simply because the 55k restrictions at KD (I?ve never truly understood why KD had to be limited to 55k - maybe Trevor knows more) were not enough for LFC.

So it?s true to say that LCC never formally "offered" KD to LFC because Rick Parry had never put them in such a position. You can take it as "red" that, had there been scope for a 65,000 seater at KD, Everton would never have received so much as a nod from LCC to consider making a bid.

It?s a bit like the entirely true assertion that LCC never refused Everton planning permission for acquiring a portion of Stanley Park. Because BK never made a formal request. He basically fell at the first hurdle, when the issue of the park covenant first arose, whether he learned of that information from a telephone call, an e-mail or a private chat.

But there?s a lot of semantics in this. Because, in the wider spirit of things, LCC definitely did discourage EFC from acquiring a portion of Stanley Park and that was in direct contrast to the reception given to Rick Parry a matter of weeks later. And although it?s true to say that LFC were never officially offered KD by LCC, Parry was definitely sounded out to become the preferred partner way before EFC were.

Parry was playing a game of brinksmanship with the Henshaw/Storey council back then and basically we?ll never know how serious LFC were about shifting themselves out of the city (oh, the irony!) or to Speke. But Parry?s games, circa the millennium period, when LCC were deciding whether to bid for the Capital of Culture title, definitely galvanised the council into action.

LFC had long since coveted the Vernon Sangster portion of Stanley Park (and more!) but it was a total non-goer. Suddenly, though, in the space of weeks, the whole matter concerning Stanley Park, the Liverpool move, an Everton move and the council?s aspirations for the KD all fell into place rather neatly. And despite the perceived double standards of LCC towards LFC and EFC concerning Stanley Park, we had a chairman who patently refused to cry foul.
There was a very good reason for that: simply because he wasn?t bothered any longer about trivialities at Stanley Park because he had bigger fish to fry and foolishly believed he had scored a huge victory over LFC by moving EFC into the driving seat concerning KD which was considered to be the real estate jewel in the crown of the city.

LCC were initially incredibly reluctant to get into bed with Everton concerning the KD because our finances (or lack of) were well known. LCC pressed EFC very, very hard, before it all became public, as to whether BK could come up with the cash. Once BK had convinced LCC that he could stump up the cash the press arrangements went into action. Within a month it was not only announced that EFC were to press ahead with preparing a bid for KD but that LFC had also achieved a solution to its ground dilemma. At that stage, every side was a winner.

Parry?s smug one-liner about Stanley Park "it had been under our noses all along" was his little in-joke. There?s probably only Parry, Henshaw, Storey and Kenwright who know the full details about what happened for so many coins to fall conveniently into all the desired slots in spring 2000. It is a matter of record though, that, once LCC had climbed into bed with EFC over the KD, it gave BK every chance and extra chance going. We more than ballsed all that up and indeed there are very long memories at LCC about how EFC cocked things up.

We also, in my opinion, ballsed up our approach for the Walton Lane end of SP. That?s when we should have stood our ground (no pun). Consider the ramifications ? particularly for LFC ? had BK played hardball concerning Stanley Park...

Thanks Greg.

I was doing my best to put the KD episode out of my mind for good, but this was riveting stuff. A post and and a half.

Greg...

We can agree that, whatever may have been the actual order of the early informal discussions, two things are clear: LCC worked hard to help both clubs during the Kings Dock process and the simultaneous moves towards planning approval for LFC in Stanley Park.

The present position is more complex and, in my opinion [and I would be happy to be proved wrong], both clubs are further away than ever from having realistic development plans in place.

I believe that Everton should not waste further time on the ill-fated Kirkby project and should be talking to LCC about two options:

[a] a modest enlargement of the Goodison footprint [behind both the Main Stand and Bullens Road, to allow for a long-term incremental development plan, keeping key aspects of the historic character, but allowing the club and the local community to share a vision of an attractive inner-city stadium that could once again be amongst the best in World football, and would share transport infrastructure with Anfield [’new’ or old]. The park is to be restored and, despite the doubters, would provide a good setting for hotels and flats overlooking it from behind an enlarged Park End.

[b] development of the Loop site, either for EFC together with a major events organisation or as a joint stadium with both LFC and an events organisation. The site has at least the same potential as the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff. Weekly ’footfall’ for a joint venture would be such that it should be possible for the stadium operating company to offer it to both clubs free of any initial capital cost.

I hope that events over the next couple of weeks will provide the impetus for action on both options, taking them beyond the stage of cosy ’informal’ enquiries,

Greg...

On the issue of the supposed 55,000 limit, I assume that this was initial advice based on the wish to ensure that the new stadium did not rise significantly above the Albert Dock.

In my opinion, a clever design could have got round this problem, but neither Everton or LCC apparently felt the need to compete with the Millennium Stadium’s 75,000. This might have turned out to be short-sighted. After all, it’s not that long ago that Man U had a plan to take them to 44,000 and Newcastle were happy to aim for 35,000.

Cheers Trevor,

Fully concur with all that you say in your first post above. The main thrust of that "Too Late to Cry" piece that I wrote last year was to dispel the notion that LCC had never helped EFC on the ground move front. They did and it was embarrassing how much EFC had to beg for "more time, please sir". I do believe now, though, that however much EFC (well BK, basically) managed to alienate many at LCC back in 2003 that it?s time for both parties to forget those old war wounds and move on from the chaos.

It?s interesting what you say about the 55k limit (it was just put out there as received wisdom that the KD couldn?t go above that) might have had something to do with the Albert Dock. I?d never really considered that before; in fact, pretty much from the moment the GFE lads left that meeting with BK (and AA) in spring 2000 we never really exercised ourselves about any aspect of the KD.

Basically we went for a pint and agreed that pretty much our work was done: we?d proved that GP could be redeveloped (that was the start point versus PJ who didn?t argue on a cash basis that GP couldn?t be redeveloped but insisted that his "feasilibility" study - which Michael Dunford later admitted never existed - showed that it physically couldn?t be redeveloped). We set out to prove him wrong and I fully believe that, had our spat with PJ been played out in the internet era, the end-game might have been different. It was just so bloody hard trying to get our message across back then against the mighty spin of both PJ and Old Hall Street.

The only KD involvement we ever had from there on in was to issue a pre-ballot statement in late 2000 when we said that we believed EFC was wasting its time (valuable, valuable years) because we simply couldn?t afford it (a kid with a Casio calculator could see that). Beyond that we issued a post-vote statement accepting the outcome, stating that the GFE had no desire to become the Evertonian equivalent of Al Gore (how ironic that we now come to the final days of Bush?s double tenure and EFC still aren?t any further on) and it would be a disaster if, at some point in the future, the KD plan collapsed and Everton had to return to the drawing board. Lamentable.

It?s farcical when you look back at some of the things that got trumpeted back then and weigh them up against the loose but dangerous rhetoric bandied around now. For instance I?ve an old copy of The Evertonian in which Clifford Buckley Finch pours scorn on any idea that Everton should ever attempt to re-locate to the KD or any waterfront location and not only cites traffic problems but starts talking colourfullly about fans in rowing boats! I recall the Echo gleefully carried the same quotes.

Yet just three years later there we were pushing full steam ahead to relocate to a 55k seater at KD and the Echo couldn?t get enough of it!

Yet just five years later KW dismisses the Loop out-of-hand, using as colourful phraseology as CBF before him (remember the "cunningly disguised hat and rabbit" quote?) and states that 55k is not big enough. Good job we never moved to the KD then, Keith, if 55k ain?t big enough. We?d have been stuck (waterlocked?) there now.

I do believe that one of the reasons BK so gladly grasped the Tesco/Kirkby solution from Leahy (whether or not it was over a coffee at the City of Manchester Stadium during our "afternoon with Shaun Wright Phillips" in 2004) was because he was running somewhat scaredly away from the City of Liverpool after the KD cock-up. You know, in amongst this whole mess that first reared up in autumn of 1996 there?s been too much petty politicking, cheap rhetoric and punch-n-judy jousting which has crippled serious and considered discussion at virtually every step of the way. And we?ve watched the Sky 4 race ahead.

When I consider what could have been achieved at GP over 10 years ago and what we would be sitting in now (rather than a stadium which KW is happy to lambast at every opportunity... and I fully expect him to regret saying those things) it really makes me want to bang my head hard against a wall. But you?re right, Trevor, depending on what happens in the next few weeks, it?s time for EFC to sit down calmly and rationally and dispense with the spin, cheaply scored points and off-the-peg one-liners like "deal of the century" (DK), "Royal Blue picture postcard" (KD) etc.
I was still in my 20s (just) when all this caper started. I?m way turned 41 now. I really don?t want to be reaching the thick end of 50 still going round in circles about the Everton ground move/stay issue.

And there in your last post, Greg, is the deciding factor why I?m now on the ??no?? side of the Kirkby debate.

If 55000 isn?t big enough for BK, why, suddenly, is 50,401?

I don?t get angry over the KD fiasco, I just get upset. You?d be able to see the stadium on the approach to Liverpool Airport from the air, from the other side of the Mersey and from the city centre. It would have been the perfect masterpiece. And BK ballsed it up, and we now have to make do with a flat-pack stadium in the arse end of nowhere (apologies to the Kirkby residents on here).

Great stuff!

I would just like to go on record in thanking Greg and Trevor for putting such a balanced and expert view on Everton’s ground mismanagement.

Could I also ask your views on the likelihood of "Kirkby" being called in.

Genuinely, I wouldn’t know how to call it, Jay.

Against all my better instincts that the project is just so bloody big that it would have to be called-in, I also believe there’s some validity in the viewpoint that the Government would have to think long and hard about delaying a regenerative project proposed by a Labour Council, operating in a deprived, exclusively Labour parliamentary area, with a known party-adviser like Leahy at the centre of it, not to mention the fact that BK is on-the-record as a donor.


Add the fact that LCC - the chief opponents of Destination Kirkby - are a Lib-Dem authority (and the bitterness that still hangs in the air about the defection episode at the May local election shouldn’t be underestimated) and it makes it seem even less likely that the project will be called in.

It’s crucial though that Joe Anderson is united with Bradley on this, so that might lessen the party political nature of all this.

I don’t think it was an accident that EFC outlined ahead of the submission process exactly how disastrous it would be for the project if it was called-in. That was a pressure line if ever I heard one.

Then again, there’s a school of thought that KW put that out there as a ready made exit strategy.

Having said all that, though, I’m curious about the role that Andy Burnham (a Main Stand season ticket holder) will play in all of this. If my info is correct he’s avowedly against Kirkby, so to what extent he’ll influence things - or even if he’ll be allowed to (conflict on interest and all that) - will be something to consider.

But, gun to my head for an answer? I suspect that somehow the call-in will be avoided - on a technicality - and the Govt will say the extra few weeks it used to balance matters were the determining factor.

Hope to the blue gods I’m wrong, though.

My view is a call-in is not inevitable, after taking all the Evertonian and residents emotional views out of the way is the size of the retail floorspace that has been the problem, I just cant see a Labour Government looking one of its own disadvantaged fiefdoms in the eye and saying "No way". People forget that the developers and KMBC will have talked with the GONW at the very outset to ask if it can be a goer, if they had got zero encouragement they wouldnt have got to this very advanced stage.

Jay...

Schemes of this size, with such widespread opposition, are usually called-in, and a public enquiry held. It would be strange if this one escaped,

...Trevor

Trevor and Greg. Thank you.

Once again
Thanks guys.

As with Brian, I?m not confident it will get called-in. Usually in big projects there?s pre-planning discussions not just with the local authority but if the development is significant enough with the government office too. I remember about a year ago Wyness saying they had "lobbied the right people" and just recently he said he?d been "working in Westminster" keeping them up to date and that's before we even talk about Leahy. Make no mistake about it, the guts of this planning application won't be as mysterious to the GONW as most of us would like to think!

Politics are a bit double-edged surely. Why would Blears be so scared of offending a handful of labour councillors in a small housing estate, yet not the dozens of labour councillors and MPs in all the surrounding boroughs who represent well over 1 million people and with some marginal seats? The unanimous weight of objections, the level of planning violations of the government?s own legislation will surely demand that this will need thorough scrutiny. Blears is also making significant and not unrelated statements about supermarket?s activities at the moment.

Tom, what ?unaminous weight of objections?? Out of the dozens of national, regional and local organisations who were asked for their opinion the only objections came from LCC (though the planning officers weren?t recommending objection), Sefton, Lancs, West Lancs, St.Helens and CABE! Three councils namely Halton, Warrington and Wirral either didn't formally object or didn't even determine the issue ?regional enough? and therefore important enough to them to make a detarmination. The councils that did object aren't even against the stadium.

The Government when assessing a major planning application listen primarily to LPA?s, the local MP, English heritage, CABE, Sport England and the Environment Agency.

Jim,
EVERY neighbouring authority affected, ie all those within the retail catchments overlapping the intended development have objected. Kirkby does not even register on the retail heirarchy for the region, meanwhile all these much larger authorities already have their own fully funded and compliant developments in place or planned which they obviously feel will be jeopardised by this proposal..... hence their objections. Whether or not anyone is for or against the stadium is surely irrelevant. Why would they be one way or the other? That said, LCC have stated categorically on a number of occasions that they are against the club leaving the city, so I’m sure that has to extend to the stadium too.

There?ll be bigger experts than me out there on planning and call-in prospects etc but does anyone else think a compromise might be possible? It seems the fundementalists on both sides think either one of two extremes is going to happen ? a call-in, so the project is scuppered because a long public enquiry would definitely happen, or it wont be called-in and a spade will be in the ground later this month.

Well I was discussing this afternoon with someone who (says he) knows his stuff and he thinks there are some cases where a call-in doesnt necessarily mean a public enquiry or at least a long 1-2 years delay; he thinks the Secretary of State can take ownership of the situation directly and impose strict conditions herself or order a short time limited public enquiry on a specific contentious aspect of a development. Maybe someone can shed some light on this?

Either way we?ll know in a few days. Maybe Hazel Blears will surprise everyone?