The university had entered into the negotiations on the express understanding that the project would make a substantial contribution towards reprovision elsewhere on the campus of the buildings it would have to give up in order to hand over, for nothing, the land required.

It was, of course, up to the university to determine the specification of these anticipated costsaccording to its needs.

A figure representing about half of these costs was regularly included in papers prepared by the club, and, while recognising that the project might not be able to bear the full cost, it was made clear that this figure would not be regarded as sufficient by the university.

In the event, and at the very last minute, the club reduced their own figure by a further 60 per cent in a final offer. Furthermore, they were only prepared to pay half up front and half on completion of the stadium.

The club has claimed in several statements during the past two weeks that their figure is based on a professional evaluation. They have not made clear this is an evaluation they commissioned of the sale price of the land for alternative use.

However, it was never intended that the land should be sold. It is, after all, not surplus to the university's requirements.

The university has only considered alienating this land as a contribution to the specific partnership in support of the community stadium.

For that reason, the cost of replacing the buildings is at the heart of the matter. The club themselves consistently recognised this up to the last moment. The relevant line of their Outline Business Case, as presented to the council, is entitled not "Purchase of Land" but "Reprovision of University Buildings".

In a meeting on June 22, the university's board of governors determined that the club's position undermined the basis of the negotiations they had in November 1999, in good faith, authorised me to enter on their behalf.

The outcome has also raised for them concerns about the overall financial viability of the project as a whole.

While we have avoided any comment on the figures involved, specifically to preserve the club's negotiating position with potential investors, it is relevant that the initial payment to the university, which was proposed by the club, is almost exactly matched by the value of the rental receipts they anticipated back from the university for use of specialist facilities.

In other words, at the last minute, the club not only expected to receive a free gift of land but for the university to undertake the whole of the initial investment in reprovisioning its buildings with no net contribution from the stadium project.

As a publicly-funded body, with responsibility to our 18,000 students and 2,500 members of staff, the university could not possibly accept this proposition.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the club was never serious about reimbursing the university at a reasonable level, nor about operating on the selected site if it would involve meeting significant obligations to the university.

This conclusion is reinforced by their statement of July 2 that they "saw a problem looming some time ago" and "decided to develop an alternative proposal for Falmer in the event that we could not reach an agreement."

During the discussions this prospect was never raised with the university, nor, I believe, with council officers. It was first announced, by the club, in the letter containing their "final offer" on 15 June.