In that stage managed 'interview', conducted by a Palace employee, Parish managed to place all the blame for lack of progress on Sainsbury's and Croydon Council. Perhaps it would have been better to have come to an agreement with Sainsbury's before progressing the project? As I've said before, we are in the position of the householder who sold some of his garden to his next door neighbour and many years later decides he wants it back, trying to name his price rather than the owner's. Sainsbury's owe us nothing, rather we arguably owe them for loss of trade on matchdays.

Parish knew full well when he put those plans to the council what the requirements in London are with regard to the replacement of loss of housing in development projects. He also knew that the club would need to contribute to the infrastructure changes required as a result of increased capacity. Perhaps the proposed stand was unnecessarily overambitious and plans to rebuild the Main Stand and the Arthur Waite, to spread the capacity increase, would have made more sense?

It is as transparent as cellophane that the real reason for lack of progress is that the US investors are no longer prepared to fund the project, probably scared off by the losses rather than the expected profits. To attempt to blame the failure on third parties is a mere distraction from the actuality.

In that stage managed 'interview', conducted by a Palace employee, Parish managed to place all the blame for lack of progress on Sainsbury's and Croydon Council. Perhaps it would have been better to have come to an agreement with Sainsbury's before progressing the project? As I've said before, we are in the position of the householder who sold some of his garden to his next door neighbour and many years later decides he wants it back, trying to name his price rather than the owner's. Sainsbury's owe us nothing, rather we arguably owe them for loss of trade on matchdays.

Parish knew full well when he put those plans to the council what the requirements in London are with regard to the replacement of loss of housing in development projects. He also knew that the club would need to contribute to the infrastructure changes required as a result of increased capacity. Perhaps the proposed stand was unnecessarily overambitious and plans to rebuild the Main Stand and the Arthur Waite, to spread the capacity increase, would have made more sense?

It is as transparent as cellophane that the real reason for lack of progress is that the US investors are no longer prepared to fund the project, probably scared off by the losses rather than the expected profits. To attempt to blame the failure on third parties is a mere distraction from the actuality.

If we are quibbling over the price of a piece of car park, it seems unlikely we'd ever stump up for the cost of a new supermarket, even if we had the funds. As my local Sainsbury's is the largest in the UK, I have limited experience of smaller stores, but I'm happy to take your word that they are the future.

I think our plans for CPP were more likely about demonstrating ambition than a serious project. I've no idea what Bromley Council's views are, but the enduring problem with that site is that the well-funded residents would mire us in years of legal wrangling and we'd probably need to invest more in the infrastructure than our current plans require.