Cambridge United director Gary Harwood was available to speak to the media this afternoon about the City Council planning committee's deferral of their decision on the Abbey Stadium redevelopment. He spoke at length to U's Net reporter Will Jones and gave some more background to the club's reaction and future strategy.

Will opened by asking, "Yesterday the decision to approve or reject the proposed re-development of the Abbey Stadium was deferred by the City Council until, at the earliest, next month. There have been various differing media reports regarding the deferral, some saying it was down to the club being 'over ambitious' and others that more information was required to make a decision. Can you clarify the reasoning behind deferring the decision, and give you opinions on that?"

Gary Harwood responded, "I will try and do that. The main reason, I believe, for the deferral was because a question was asked by a councillor at the planning committee yesterday. He was not a member of the planning committee and the question was: 'I am very supportive of Cambridge United's re-development plans but I do not believe they need all the physical land space the application requires. I am not convinced the club have carefully considered that issue and therefore I would suggest the planning committee defer the decision and go back to the applicants and ask them to re-consider if they could do the application on a smaller piece of land.'

"I think the implication from that is that they want us to use less allotment land, and as you know the application involved 19 allotment plots. I believe that is the reason for the deferral, however the planning officers are very much pro the application and were strongly recommending the approval of the application (these are the council's own professional advisers). At one stage the director of planning actually asked the planning committee what other questions he could ask Cambridge United, as he felt he had asked them everything he possibly could have and that the application was sound and should be approved.

"The council have actually told the committee that they have until Friday to go away and decide what questions they want to ask Cambridge United. Interestingly enough, we have spent 7 months answering questions. The question which caused the deferral yesterday was actually asked on the 18th August 1999 by the same person at the development forum. We answered that question then. After that we re-visited that question and answered it yet again. The council's planning officers were happy that we had answered that question. The same councillor asked the same question and we are not allowed to answer the question at the planning committee. I believe they will get exactly the same answer again, and I do believe it is just a minor delay.

"Going back to your point on dates, there has been some hint that it might be the February meeting, it might be the March meeting or it might even be the April meeting. The reason for that is because the council officers need time to prepare reports and get them submitted well in advance for the planning committee. This is an interesting concept as if the answers are the same as they have already had, there is no reason on earth that it can't go back before the committee on the 9th February. That is what the club will be expecting and demanding."

Will then asked, "Am I correct in assuming that they have no right to deny or delay the decision of the application on anything other than planning grounds, and thus any decision that is made in reference to allotment land is 'against the rules'?"

Mr Harwood replied, "That is my understating as well, Will. My understanding and our professional advisors' understanding is that there are no planning reasons as to why the application should be refused. Indeed, the questions that are being raised - as you quite rightly say - are to do with the loss of allotment land. That is not a planning issue."

Will pointed out, "The situation is being portrayed in the media as a battle between the allotment holders and Cambridge United Football Club. That isn't and never has been the case, has it?"

"Absolutely not," responded Harwood. "I sometimes get a little bit irritated about the situation being described as a war between the allotments and the club but I personally don't believe it is. I have a great deal of sympathy for the allotment holders, but again let me stress we are talking 19 allotments. I don't know how many allotment sites there are in the city of Cambridge but several hundred. We are not talking a massive loss of allotment land. We are talking about a percentage of allotment that is far, far less that the percentage of unused allotments in the rest of Cambridge. We are not even taking away cultivated allotments.

"I have sympathy, and it is not a war. Cambridge United have to survive, we have to survive. The only way we can survive is to go ahead with this development, and I am sad that the only way to do this will result in the loss of 19 allotment plots. Unfortunately that is the fact of life. We could re-develop a stadium with a smaller capacity, and perhaps not require all of the 19 allotments but the club might still not survive because we need what we have applied for in the development. We have a business case that shows that anything less will not keep the football club alive."

Will continued, "I seem to get the overriding impression that a lot of the people on the council those who are opposing the development in general are failing to grasp the gravity of the consequences this football club will face if the application is denied. It would mean the long term, and possibly even short term, death of a football club who are supported by thousands and thousands of people across the city."

"I categorically believe that to be the case," agreed Harwood. "I have said it and written to the council and told them that in words of one syllable. Cambridge United in pure trading terms loses about £500,000 every year. We have done for many years, and will continue to do so. That is a fact of life.

"In the past we have managed to achieve survival by trading players in the transfer market and therefore bridging that gap with net transfer proceeds. As you well know, we now only get transfer proceeds for players who are in contract or under the age of 24. I believe that in time even those players under the age of 24 will be allowed to walk away. Therefore you will only get transfer proceeds for those players who are in contract. This would put a severe burden on clubs like Cambridge United and effectively end our ability to fund our trading losses. There will come a time when we will be in that position.

"The only way, therefore, to bridge that gap is to find other mechanisms to generate that shortfall. The only way we can do that is to re-develop the Abbey Stadium, increase the commercial figures and revenue earning potential. All of our calculations show that the application as we have submitted will generate £350-400,000 profit each year. It is the only way we are going to survive."

Will then asked, "With reference to the negotiations you are having to undergo with the City Council, do you get the impression you are dealing with a brick wall that doesn't nor wishes to understand our plight. I get the impression they would be happy to see their local football team whither and die?"

Mr Harwood responded, "I have to be careful how I answer this. I believe there are certain members of the council who may be happier if Cambridge United didn't exist, and I don't just mean inside the city but anywhere. Negotiating with a brick wall is perhaps too strong a statement as there clearly are members of the council who fully understand our plight, and I believe fully support what we are trying to do.

"In a brick wall everything is solid, and there are no gaps. I believe there are gaps, and I genuinely believe we will get over this latest delay. I am convinced that there are elements in the council who would be happy to see the end of Cambridge United once and for all."

Will asked, "So what is the logical way forward? Do we just sit patiently and wait for them to delay further or could you perhaps use the clause of which you mention in your press release where you can demand a decision from the planning committee?"

"Again, I need to talk to our advisers and friends on the council," replied Harwood. "I believe, and as I have said in my statement earlier today, we should expect and demand that it gets heard on the 9th February at the next meeting. I would rather them refuse the application than just keep leaving us in limbo. If they refuse the application then we can challenge it, and appeal against it. I do not believe there are any planning grounds on which this application could be refused. We will demand that they consider this application at the next meeting. I then believe they will approve it."

Will concluded with a question many supporters are asking: "Finally, what can the fans do - either at this stage or after the decision is reached - to help Cambridge United in this application to stay alive?"

"I believe that right now the fans need to be patient and wait from advice from the club," said Harwood. "I think some time next week the club will have precisely determined its strategy and tactics to get up to and through the 9th February. I am sure there will be things that fans can do to help us. I will be personally advising the fans of that directly through the Internet and the Cambridge United Supporters Association.

"Assuming we do get planning permission then there will be a significant amount of help we will need from the fans of this football club. Make no mistake, this is just the first hurdle. We have still got to get through the next process after this. It is in the next process (DETR) that the fans can have even more influence in the eventual outcome. At this stage we would be in a situation where the decision is based on a wider spectrum than just the planning criteria. That is when we will need a lot more support."

General Manager Colin Davies was also present and Will asked him, "Have you spoken to the planning officers after this latest delay?"

Davies responded, "I spoke to them this morning, and I explained to them that we expect our application to be in front of that committee on the 9th February. They are going to be assembling the comments for the memorandum by the close of Friday and they promised I would get a copy of that Tuesday at the latest. I will consider those points and get back to them in plenty of time to meet that 9th February deadline."

Have your say: Abbey Stadium Redevelopment Message Board