'Deeply hurt' Fayed reconsidering future of Fulham

If anyone was in any doubt over whether there was a crisis at Fulham Football Club, they only had to listen to the words of Mohamed Al Fayed. "I am deeply hurt by the abuse I have received from so-called supporters who seem so quickly to have forgotten the personal sacrifices I have made for this club and the amount of my own money I have spent to achieve success for Fulham," he said.

"These people don't appreciate what I have done to rescue their club and bring it to the Premiership in such a short space of time."

So, it is payback time, then. Fulham fans can – with 99 per cent certainty – wave goodbye to Craven Cottage after 106 years and expect, at best, a new stadium with a capacity of around 24,000, or, at worst, be the new, nomadic Wimbledon FC. Anything, it seems, is possible.

Fayed and his staff continue to stress, with diminishing conviction, their desire to return to a redeveloped Cottage. They admit plans are being scaled down. There is no longer talk of a hotel, a casino, retail development and housing to supplement the stadium. According to one source, it is a question of "managing the club's finances in a way that can viably sustain it". So much for Fayed's boast of turning Fulham into "the Manchester United of the South".

So why not go back now? Why not do what Hammersmith and Fulham council and the Back to the Cottage supporters' group are urging – abandon the unhappy groundshare at Loftus Road and modify the existing Craven Cottage structure.

The reason why not appeared to emerge yesterday. Fulham have received a £15m down payment on a deal to sell the Cottage site to a company called Fulham River Projects Ltd who would then turn it into prime residential property. If it all goes through it could net up to £150m – think how much a penthouse by the Thames costs – which would allow Fayed to recoup his reported £100m outlay on the club and have money to spare for a new ground which would cost no more than £30m.

New planning permission would be required – and probably opposed – but the plan would be to market a 240,000 cubic foot development under the Harrods brand name with work starting in 2005. A contract, lodged with the Land Registry last September, outlined "the demolition of the existing football stadium and other buildings on the property and the construction of residential units."

The deal would have gone through last autumn but for the fact that Fulham were bid into third place, behind a property company and the BBC, for a former dairy site in Wood Lane, west London.

Two other sites are now believed to be under consideration with the club knowing it will be easier to get planning permission from the council to abandon football at Craven Cottage – at present the pitch is "protected" – if they remain in the borough. That is one reason why sites such as Osterley, near Heathrow in the borough of Hounslow, have been discounted for now.

The first site believed to be under consideration is slightly further to the north of Wood Lane, currently owned by Marks & Spencer. But it is the second that is much more interesting.

Sources believe Fulham may want to go to a 40-acre site called Imperial Wharf, a former gas works, near Chelsea Harbour and on the banks of the Thames. It is being developed for residential and retail with plans for a station.

This proposal may also shed light on Fulham River Projects, the company which has mortgaged Craven Cottage. The company was set up in September by Forsters Solicitors, a property law firm. Its only director is Sophie Hamilton, a senior partner with the firm, but she has no personal stake in it.

It is believed that the company behind FRP is St George, a subsidiary of housebuilder Berkeley Homes – and the company which is developing Imperial Wharf. Needless to say, all parties refused to comment yesterday but it would not take too much to surmise that a land swap may be contemplated.

Another alternative is a ground share with Chelsea and talks are ongoing. Fulham would like to sign up for just three years and see how other plans develop but the Chelsea chairman, Ken Bates, is driving a harder bargain. He wants Fulham to be his tenants for at least 15 years. Quite how Bates and Fayed would accommodate each other is another matter.

A major stumbling block is the council. They only allowed permission to develop the West Stand at Stamford Bridge on the understanding that the ground would be used for Chelsea's home games and five other events a year.

There is even speculation that Fulham may go for broke and team up with Queen's Park Rangers, their present landlords. Both the Cottage and Loftus Road would be sold and the clubs merged together with a new stadium. But surely that is a step too far, even for Fayed – isn't it?