Some time ago I posted a few things about the new stand, written from my professional perspective as a planner.

Of the various issues covered, two seem pertinent in light of the Athletic article (which at least seems fairly well informed and not stuffed full of the usual inaccurate details and baseless speculation).

Firstly, for anyone who doesn't know what a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) is, it is a mechanism that allows the Council to buy your land for market price (ish) whether you want to sell it or not, when that land is needed for development from which the community will benefit. Usually, as in this case, the developer (CPFC) pays for it, the Council has the power in law to make it happen, so it is a partnership between club and Council.

Getting a CPO on the Sainsburys land was always a method likely to be pursued successfully if a fair price could not be agreed. Both Palace and Sainsburys would have known that all along. Which brings me to the second issue, timescales.

Palace got the original planning application through in record speed, and it's clear the Council want this to go ahead. The various tariffs and charges are perfectly reasonable, and it's really not clear to me why Palace took so long to sign the legal agreement and/or press for the CPO.

It isn't obvious that what is apparently happening now couldn't have happened within six months of the original planning permission, and I remain of the view that something within CPFC delayed progress.

Maybe...

The club weren't actually ready to get cracking when permission came through because they expected the planning process to take longer.

The club were focused on the academy at the time, and didn't want to take on two projects at once (it is still quite a small organisation at boardroom level I feel, which results in great care being taken for better or worse. Mostly better).

Up until recently, the club were worried about whether we had a squad likely to stay up for the foreseeable future, but now feel we do.

The club were worried that we didn't have enough salable assets on the pitch to bail the club out if construction costs spiralled, but now feel we do.

The club wanted to cull the wage bill before taking on a loan of the required size to build this stand, presuming we are repaying a loan on this project.

Textor is more upfront with the cash than his compatriots (keeping in mind that none of the spending on the stand is caught by FFP).

Covid.

Personally, I think all of these are reasonable considerations for the club to have, and if the stand gets started in the next 18 months it'll still be a pretty quick journey from paperwork to brickwork by the standards of most projects this size, especially in recent circumstances.

Man City would have done it quicker no doubt, but many wouldn't have done it at all. Ultimately, the stand will be around for much longer than most of us, and the delays are fairly small beer in that context.

You are of course correct but that was just my preference for location without worrying too much about the restrictions. I have always favoured a move to a new site but I do appreciate all of the arguments against doing this.

Ultimately with the direction we are currently going, I think we will continue to upgrade the ground by either buying the site off Sainsburys or agreeing a rebuild of the Whitehorse stand incorporating a new store. It would be nice to think that might happen in the next 20 years. I’m sure a lot of fans would prefer an upgrade on the Arthur first though!