In the light of the latest problems, highlighted in today's Argus (March 13), relating to the proposed Brighton and Hove Albion Stadium in Falmer, would it not be more sensible for the club to "cut its losses" and accept the offer to build at Toad's Hole Valley?

If it is true that the delay will incur losses of £50,000 a week, surely it must be wiser to concede and not to risk such ruinous deficits.

The other alternatives, at Waterhall and Sheepcote Valley, are nonstarters because the former is in a water-catchment area and north of the by-pass and the latter is on a former landfill site with its attendant possibility of methane leakage in the long-term.

It would seem the Albion is going to need all the cash it can muster to foster the talents of its fledgling Seagulls, whose prowess appears to be very promising, and/or to buy new players.

If, as appears possible, the present team is sadly relegated, the delays inherent in the battle for Falmer is something the club must avoid if it is ever to build a team capable of using a new stadium efficiently.

I, for one, do not think the Albion chairman's rather intemperate comments referring to "county town old-money snobbery" is at all helpful.

Lewes District Council has an obligation to represent all of its taxpayers, not just its Albion supporters, and must pursue its legal challenge if that is the only way it can hope to overturn a dubious decision on the part of the Deputy Prime Minister.

-JM Hawkins, Shoreham