My understanding is that it is claimed to largely stem from the CEO of SFA taking a dislike to MW

I am aware of a large number of allegedly 'petty actions' by SFA which I believe are unjustified

An independent inquiry in currently underway

It serves to underline the importance of DWFC getting on with purchasing the operating lease (ie not just the stadium freehold). Sooner the better.

Do we know the hurdles that exist now that prevent the purchase? Seems like we were approved to purchase awhile ago.

My understanding is that a deal was agreed about a year ago between MVDC, SFA & DWFC but the SFA appears to have reneged and taken every opportunity to delay further discussions.  Apart from the petty actions I mentioned above they exploit DWFC for SFA’s commercial gain, refuse to discuss issues around the table (instead use expensive lawyers), petition community clubs with anti-DWFC propaganda and even engage with local councillors to derail the stadium sale. DWFC have made an official complaint to the FA and requested that a formal enquiry be made into the SFA’s actions.  I think this has just started.

Is it just me? Have I missed something? Or is their disgraceful approach to the landlord and tenant relationship inexcusable? If other Forum subscribers  feel like I do  are you content to sit back and let the SFA destroy Dorking Wanderers Football Club?  Or do you want to do something about it?

I don’t have any inside track on all the shenanigans beyond what Marc has told us.  
But it does sound outrageous what SFA are doing; completely petty and an absolute waste of money.  Good that there is now an inquiry but it sounds like there should have been some sort of mediation at the start to avoid the legal costs. SFA should be called out for squandering so much money at the very least.  

In terms of doing something about it, I’m up for that.  But what are you thinking? And would the club want it to come out in public? 

There are many options, from public protests at SFA events and DW games to more subtle behind the scenes questioning and buggering them about.  Other thoughts? 

As a first step it would be good if as many people as possible wrote (e-mail or letter) to the Leader of MVDC, copied to your local Councillor.  And also a letter (e-mail) to the Acting Chair of the SFA. 

MVDC appear to be on our side so not too critical but asking them to do more to resolve the conflict.

To SFA just express your feelings about their approach, ask them to justify their actions, demand that they get on with the review, etc.

I've written to both with Marc's blessing. I'm not expecting replies but the more people who write (and who are not DWFC officials) the more pressure on them to act.  At a meeting several months ago Marc said that at one stage the SFA wanted DWFC to sign NDAs so that their disgraceful, vindictive actions would not be made public.

The company doing the review is Bird & Bird and I cc'd my SFA letter to their London partner.

You can find relevant names on web sites.  It's best to compose your own message (even if it's short and to the point) rather than boiler plate the same words.

Hope this helps and encourages forum subscribers to write.

Thanks @DorkingTyke.
By coincidence, this morning I found in my junk mail the updates for part owners so that is helpful. But I am still not sure how public this issue should be. Some public pressure on SFA may be well deserved but would it be helpful to the club? 

I wonder if the 12th Man Scheme raised enough cash to cover the cost of the SFA's malicious litigation. Why are they trying to bankrupt DWFC? That money could have been used to cover the Away Stand.

By the way, Marc, Kris and Jonathan gave me the go ahead to send letters.

The matter is hardly confidential if 700/800 'owners' (shareholders) have had all the juicy details shared with them

Bearing in mind the majority of those are no doubt (very) local people

FWIW I wrote to the MP for Dorking and Horley and copied in the club

I cannot really lobby the local Council not say anything publicly about them for obvious reasons

The club however have had more than enough money to finish the West end of the stadium (ie put the roof on it), as they raised what? £600k from the shares issues? I was of the understanding that much of the money raised would be going on infrastructure - certainly if the club want to raise any further monies from such fundraising schemes then surely something visible and physical needs to be seen for the club to have credibility for such fundraising efforts, otherwise people will just see it as a money grab and presume all the funds are disappearing on player wages 

That's a good idea David.  I'll write to the MP aswell.

And I will try to bump into him at work and bend his ear. 

A part of me is surprised that Dorking haven't tried to make the issues more public and put some pressure on the SFA by getting the media involved more (BBC, Sky, etc).

I've also said before, at what point does the hassle and cost not become worth it anymore and Dorking look at other sites for a new ground rather than staying at Meadowbank?

It is extremely bizarre that the Surrey FA is taking such an adversarial approach to the club. 

What would the income be without Dorking Wanderers stature as a club? The ground would be used by youth training businesses like Josh Evans and Late Birthday project but that really is about it.

Otherwise only amateur low level clubs like Dorkinians, St Pauls Panthers, and Brockham Badgers would use it. They really they need to be a bit more commercial here. 

The Club hasn't gone public before because the SFA were trying to gag them with a Non Disclosure Agreement. It was thought best to keep negotiations quiet anyway in the hope that the SFA would be reasonable. Anyway the gloves seem to be off now.

The independent enquiry is under way but until it makes its conclusions and recommendations it is all grist to the mill for as many people as possible to keep the pressure on the SFA (and to some extent MVDC who appear to be on our side).

So please express your concerns, disgust, whatever to the Acting Chair of the SFA Mr Soye Briggs (soye.briggs@surreyfa.co ). Ask him to justify the SFA's vindictive and obstructive actions.

You could argue they are being overly commercial!

'Want to take down the scoreboard so you can put up a tv gantry?' - that'll be £x 'licence fee'

'Want to take the back off that terrace to stop people banging it? - that'll be £x licence fee

Their greed has gone to the point of being unreasonable

It will be wholly more satisfactory when Dorking own the freehold and operating lease

1/ They won't pay rent and all manner of other charges to SFA

2/ DW themselves can profit from the community use of the pitch

3/ DW can do loads more commercial stuff, without incurring all sorts of charges from SFA - sell naming rights for the stadium, erect more food and drink units, rent out car parking during the week etc

For all those reasons it makes sense to stay put and just get shot of SFA