Following Hugh Murton's comments in last week's Packet, we would like to remind readers of a few other quotes: 1. "We want to completely revamp the recreation ground and that means investing in it and we have to generate money. We are being completely practical. The more people who use the place, the better the facility we can provide."

2. "In addition to the floodlights, other plans include redeveloping the track for use by runners or cyclists and providing other facilities, possibly a sports hall or gymnasium. We will be providing facilities the ground needs."

3. "There is a shortage of things in Falmouth for sport. We know the kids in the area need somewhere to meet for organised sport. We have a good facility here, we would like to expand it."

Any of that sound familiar? Believe it or not, those comments were given to the local press by Falmouth rugby club secretary (now project manager) Hugh Murton in August, 2000, after the planning application to develop the famous old ground and the move to Menehay was refused, partly because the chief planning officer for Carrick district council, Derek Ballard, described it as a protected open space alongside other major environmental issues, including traffic congestion and "loss of an open space in a densely built-up area of the town."

What happened? We all know what happened. Nothing! In fact by March, 2002, Mr Murton was once again trying to develop the recreation ground. This time his trump card was affordable housing and that failed miserably as well.

Sorry, but the vast majority of Falmothians say the rugby club have not earned the right to an exclusive multi-million pound 16-acre site based on empty promises as quoted above. Every time we look at the rugby clubhouse, it's shut! Where are all these volunteers we heard about to run the bar, etc. Why do they need the council to bale them out with peppercorn rents and handouts?

Like any tenant they should be asked to re-instate the present site, within reason, to how it was. Falmothians want to know why they should be considered to receive exclusively millions of pounds for a single-use facility and follow that up with tens of thousands of pounds per annum of public money to see if they can survive at Menehay.

In a nutshell, the rugby club appear to be trying to sell a ground they do not own, and if they are not careful they could be asked to leave unless they keep to the terms of their "full repairing" lease. We as a group do not want to see that happen and wish the rugby club well in the future at the "rec."

Save the Rec Campaign, Falmouth