Unless I've got my figures in muddle, I would say there is quite a difference between the ?25m available for Kentish Town bath refurb and the circa ?5 million available for FH Pools. You could certainly do a great job of refurbishing FH Pool with that sort of budget, but this is Lewisham, not relatively wealthier Camden. People have deeper pockets up there.
I am also aware that the Kentish Town campaign has /had at its heart the Talacre Sports Centre debacle. Talacre Sports Centre was built a few years ago near to the baths but contained no pool as KTB were still operational.There was an alternative site for a pool adjacent to the new sports centre but just as the Council was realising that refurbishment of KT baths was expensive and other options were needed, this site was sold off to a private housing developer for the princely sum of ?300k.
The KT baths issue is therefore in a different context to ours, ie one where a newbuild on the same site was highly improbable for planning and practical reasons, and the most reasonable alternative site for a newbuild option on a Council owned site was no longer available. Therefore the choice was between refurb or no pool . The Council chose the refurb. Acquiring another site of that size in KT is not possible due to prohibitive land values,as well as the little problem of not much land around.
In FH an onsite newbuild remains a viable option and remains as far as I can see the only option that would produce the best use of public money and gets the facilities we need.

I am not saying don't hang on to old buildings, and there is nothing wrong with valuing heritage but what seems to be missing amongst all thos passion for retention is a discussion on value for money, which the Council is duty bound to consider. This ongoing debate is principally between aesthetes and pragmatists.