Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Valley and Sparrows Lane lease extended to 2040
Comments
-
Here’s what AI has to say about commercial property returns:
The average return on UK commercial property leases, or yield, is approximately 7% to 8.7%, but this varies significantly based on the property's location, type, and market conditions. For example, shopping centers might yield around 7.5%, while prime London offices could be lower at 3-4%, and some locations, like Scotland, can have yields over 8%.Factors influencing returns- Property type:Returns differ by sector. Shopping centers and retail spaces may have different yields than industrial or office properties.
Location:Yields are not uniform across the country. For example, locations in the North and Scotland may have higher yields than prime central London.Market conditions:Yields can fluctuate based on the overall economic climate, interest rates, and the specific property market's activity.Risk profile:Higher-risk properties or locations may offer higher yields to compensate for that risk.
What is considered a good yield?- Good: 5-7% is often considered a good yield.
- Very good: A yield above 6-7% is generally seen as very good.
- Prime properties: Prime properties in top locations like central London may have lower yields (e.g., 3-4%) because of their stability and capital growth potential.
Remember that RD leased The Valley - minus the infrastructure - to ESI for £100k, which was a 0.2% return on his valuation. His main objective was to dump the loss-making football business, albeit he may have been foolish enough to believe ESI would buy the freeholds.
The Sandgaard variation, like his takeover, was bad for the club, with the only argument in its defence that something worse could have happened in 2020 and that it bridged the gap to a better ownership.3 -
if he was going to force us out, he wouldn't have extended the lease, so other than buying it, extending the lease must be seen as good news, surely?Airman Brown said:
The rent is 1% of his valuation (probably closer to 2.5% in the real world) and trivial in the bigger picture. I think he’s in a reasonable position to hold the club to ransom and the club’s only real card is to threaten or actually go somewhere else to share again. So RD / his successor potentially loses the rent and has to pay the business rates, but ultimately the club has to settle or give up, because there is no easy third option that I can see.ShootersHillGuru said:
As I’d expect all very good and valid points but isn’t sitting behind the split ownership the prospect that The Valley will only ever be a football stadium for the reasons we already know regarding other development possibilities. On that basis unless the owner wants to increase the terms of the lease to a point where it’s not affordable to remain I don’t see it as an issue because if the football club were forced out for economic reasons the owner gets nothing in terms of revenue and is forced to go down the road of seeking planning permission with all the obstacles that entails which could take years ? With no certainty of success.Airman Brown said:
You should ask yourself why extending the lease back to its original length was a priority then. Investing in the football side, like investing in the ground, is compromised to a greater or lesser extent by the lack of certainty about the security of the status quo.ShootersHillGuru said:I’ll get my tin hat ready but although I’d be very happy to see the football club and both The Valley and Sparrows re united in ownership I really don’t see the current state of affairs necessarily as a major obstacle to success on the pitch going forward. I accept that owning the real estate might provide some leverage in terms of dealing with banks should a loan be required but surely (?) that type of financial arrangement would be solely for capital investment. Not something I’d expect our owners to be looking at for the obvious reason of not owning the site and not needing at this point if ever of increasing the capacity. Sensible ownership, incremental improvements, good appointments with steady if unspectacular investment and not forgetting luck should imho see the football clubs on field achievements improve. I don’t believe the ownership of the real estate and footballing success are as closely linked as some.I can’t speak to the motives of the owners, but they are bound to consider their investment in the light of its durability and risk. It is surprising they bought the club with a 11-12-year lease and it would be even more surprising if they were able to sell it on with a shorter one. It’s not about securing loans. It’s about the ability of a third party to wreck your business at will.If there is no club and no early prospect of one capable of operating out of the stadium then consent would be granted for redevelopment in some form, if not by the council then over its head. The Duchatelet family could comfortably afford to sit out a lengthy hiatus.A possible scenario is that the council CPO the vacant site and sell it on to the club. This is what Thanet did with Dreamland to prevent the owner turning most of it into housing. But it’s not straightforward and the council certainly can’t use its CPO powers while it’s in use for football.0 -
You make very strong points.Airman Brown said:
The rent is 1% of his valuation (probably closer to 2.5% in the real world) and trivial in the bigger picture. I think he’s in a reasonable position to hold the club to ransom and the club’s only real card is to threaten or actually go somewhere else to share again. So RD / his successor potentially loses the rent and has to pay the business rates, but ultimately the club has to settle or give up, because there is no easy third option that I can see.ShootersHillGuru said:
As I’d expect all very good and valid points but isn’t sitting behind the split ownership the prospect that The Valley will only ever be a football stadium for the reasons we already know regarding other development possibilities. On that basis unless the owner wants to increase the terms of the lease to a point where it’s not affordable to remain I don’t see it as an issue because if the football club were forced out for economic reasons the owner gets nothing in terms of revenue and is forced to go down the road of seeking planning permission with all the obstacles that entails which could take years ? With no certainty of success.Airman Brown said:
You should ask yourself why extending the lease back to its original length was a priority then. Investing in the football side, like investing in the ground, is compromised to a greater or lesser extent by the lack of certainty about the security of the status quo.ShootersHillGuru said:I’ll get my tin hat ready but although I’d be very happy to see the football club and both The Valley and Sparrows re united in ownership I really don’t see the current state of affairs necessarily as a major obstacle to success on the pitch going forward. I accept that owning the real estate might provide some leverage in terms of dealing with banks should a loan be required but surely (?) that type of financial arrangement would be solely for capital investment. Not something I’d expect our owners to be looking at for the obvious reason of not owning the site and not needing at this point if ever of increasing the capacity. Sensible ownership, incremental improvements, good appointments with steady if unspectacular investment and not forgetting luck should imho see the football clubs on field achievements improve. I don’t believe the ownership of the real estate and footballing success are as closely linked as some.I can’t speak to the motives of the owners, but they are bound to consider their investment in the light of its durability and risk. It is surprising they bought the club with a 11-12-year lease and it would be even more surprising if they were able to sell it on with a shorter one. It’s not about securing loans. It’s about the ability of a third party to wreck your business at will.If there is no club and no early prospect of one capable of operating out of the stadium then consent would be granted for redevelopment in some form, if not by the council then over its head. The Duchatelet family could comfortably afford to sit out a lengthy hiatus.A possible scenario is that the council CPO the vacant site and sell it on to the club. This is what Thanet did with Dreamland to prevent the owner turning most of it into housing. But it’s not straightforward and the council certainly can’t use its CPO powers while it’s in use for football.1 -
Henry Irving said:Three weeks ago the museum give one of the owners a book to stress the importance of the Valley, this week the lease is extended. Coincidence? We think not!😵💫
Fine work!
This is possibly (definitely?) the most anonymous ownership group that I can remember, and I started in the 70s Gliksten era.
But that is not a bad thing.
Which one of our owners is that?1 -
Gabriel BrenerPowell2ThePeople said:Henry Irving said:Three weeks ago the museum give one of the owners a book to stress the importance of the Valley, this week the lease is extended. Coincidence? We think not!😵💫
Fine work!
This is possibly (definitely?) the most anonymous ownership group that I can remember, and I started in the 70s Gliksten era.
But that is not a bad thing.
Which one of our owners is that?1 -
I don’t think he wants to force us out. But I am sceptical he will allow the club to get to a secure position either.DOUCHER said:
if he was going to force us out, he wouldn't have extended the lease, so other than buying it, extending the lease must be seen as good news, surely?Airman Brown said:
The rent is 1% of his valuation (probably closer to 2.5% in the real world) and trivial in the bigger picture. I think he’s in a reasonable position to hold the club to ransom and the club’s only real card is to threaten or actually go somewhere else to share again. So RD / his successor potentially loses the rent and has to pay the business rates, but ultimately the club has to settle or give up, because there is no easy third option that I can see.ShootersHillGuru said:
As I’d expect all very good and valid points but isn’t sitting behind the split ownership the prospect that The Valley will only ever be a football stadium for the reasons we already know regarding other development possibilities. On that basis unless the owner wants to increase the terms of the lease to a point where it’s not affordable to remain I don’t see it as an issue because if the football club were forced out for economic reasons the owner gets nothing in terms of revenue and is forced to go down the road of seeking planning permission with all the obstacles that entails which could take years ? With no certainty of success.Airman Brown said:
You should ask yourself why extending the lease back to its original length was a priority then. Investing in the football side, like investing in the ground, is compromised to a greater or lesser extent by the lack of certainty about the security of the status quo.ShootersHillGuru said:I’ll get my tin hat ready but although I’d be very happy to see the football club and both The Valley and Sparrows re united in ownership I really don’t see the current state of affairs necessarily as a major obstacle to success on the pitch going forward. I accept that owning the real estate might provide some leverage in terms of dealing with banks should a loan be required but surely (?) that type of financial arrangement would be solely for capital investment. Not something I’d expect our owners to be looking at for the obvious reason of not owning the site and not needing at this point if ever of increasing the capacity. Sensible ownership, incremental improvements, good appointments with steady if unspectacular investment and not forgetting luck should imho see the football clubs on field achievements improve. I don’t believe the ownership of the real estate and footballing success are as closely linked as some.I can’t speak to the motives of the owners, but they are bound to consider their investment in the light of its durability and risk. It is surprising they bought the club with a 11-12-year lease and it would be even more surprising if they were able to sell it on with a shorter one. It’s not about securing loans. It’s about the ability of a third party to wreck your business at will.If there is no club and no early prospect of one capable of operating out of the stadium then consent would be granted for redevelopment in some form, if not by the council then over its head. The Duchatelet family could comfortably afford to sit out a lengthy hiatus.A possible scenario is that the council CPO the vacant site and sell it on to the club. This is what Thanet did with Dreamland to prevent the owner turning most of it into housing. But it’s not straightforward and the council certainly can’t use its CPO powers while it’s in use for football.2 -
We have a secure position - do u really think in 15 years time, he's going to make us leave? If that was going to happen, he wouldn't have extended.Airman Brown said:
I don’t think he wants to force us out. But I am sceptical he will allow the club to get to a secure position either.DOUCHER said:
if he was going to force us out, he wouldn't have extended the lease, so other than buying it, extending the lease must be seen as good news, surely?Airman Brown said:
The rent is 1% of his valuation (probably closer to 2.5% in the real world) and trivial in the bigger picture. I think he’s in a reasonable position to hold the club to ransom and the club’s only real card is to threaten or actually go somewhere else to share again. So RD / his successor potentially loses the rent and has to pay the business rates, but ultimately the club has to settle or give up, because there is no easy third option that I can see.ShootersHillGuru said:
As I’d expect all very good and valid points but isn’t sitting behind the split ownership the prospect that The Valley will only ever be a football stadium for the reasons we already know regarding other development possibilities. On that basis unless the owner wants to increase the terms of the lease to a point where it’s not affordable to remain I don’t see it as an issue because if the football club were forced out for economic reasons the owner gets nothing in terms of revenue and is forced to go down the road of seeking planning permission with all the obstacles that entails which could take years ? With no certainty of success.Airman Brown said:
You should ask yourself why extending the lease back to its original length was a priority then. Investing in the football side, like investing in the ground, is compromised to a greater or lesser extent by the lack of certainty about the security of the status quo.ShootersHillGuru said:I’ll get my tin hat ready but although I’d be very happy to see the football club and both The Valley and Sparrows re united in ownership I really don’t see the current state of affairs necessarily as a major obstacle to success on the pitch going forward. I accept that owning the real estate might provide some leverage in terms of dealing with banks should a loan be required but surely (?) that type of financial arrangement would be solely for capital investment. Not something I’d expect our owners to be looking at for the obvious reason of not owning the site and not needing at this point if ever of increasing the capacity. Sensible ownership, incremental improvements, good appointments with steady if unspectacular investment and not forgetting luck should imho see the football clubs on field achievements improve. I don’t believe the ownership of the real estate and footballing success are as closely linked as some.I can’t speak to the motives of the owners, but they are bound to consider their investment in the light of its durability and risk. It is surprising they bought the club with a 11-12-year lease and it would be even more surprising if they were able to sell it on with a shorter one. It’s not about securing loans. It’s about the ability of a third party to wreck your business at will.If there is no club and no early prospect of one capable of operating out of the stadium then consent would be granted for redevelopment in some form, if not by the council then over its head. The Duchatelet family could comfortably afford to sit out a lengthy hiatus.A possible scenario is that the council CPO the vacant site and sell it on to the club. This is what Thanet did with Dreamland to prevent the owner turning most of it into housing. But it’s not straightforward and the council certainly can’t use its CPO powers while it’s in use for football.3 -
I bloody hate this, being at the beck and call of that fu*kin’ Belgian…😫3
-
Those following this thread are in serious danger of passing out from dizziness the amount of laps we’ve done of this circleDOUCHER said:
We have a secure position - do u really think in 15 years time, he's going to make us leave? If that was going to happen, he wouldn't have extended.Airman Brown said:
I don’t think he wants to force us out. But I am sceptical he will allow the club to get to a secure position either.DOUCHER said:
if he was going to force us out, he wouldn't have extended the lease, so other than buying it, extending the lease must be seen as good news, surely?Airman Brown said:
The rent is 1% of his valuation (probably closer to 2.5% in the real world) and trivial in the bigger picture. I think he’s in a reasonable position to hold the club to ransom and the club’s only real card is to threaten or actually go somewhere else to share again. So RD / his successor potentially loses the rent and has to pay the business rates, but ultimately the club has to settle or give up, because there is no easy third option that I can see.ShootersHillGuru said:
As I’d expect all very good and valid points but isn’t sitting behind the split ownership the prospect that The Valley will only ever be a football stadium for the reasons we already know regarding other development possibilities. On that basis unless the owner wants to increase the terms of the lease to a point where it’s not affordable to remain I don’t see it as an issue because if the football club were forced out for economic reasons the owner gets nothing in terms of revenue and is forced to go down the road of seeking planning permission with all the obstacles that entails which could take years ? With no certainty of success.Airman Brown said:
You should ask yourself why extending the lease back to its original length was a priority then. Investing in the football side, like investing in the ground, is compromised to a greater or lesser extent by the lack of certainty about the security of the status quo.ShootersHillGuru said:I’ll get my tin hat ready but although I’d be very happy to see the football club and both The Valley and Sparrows re united in ownership I really don’t see the current state of affairs necessarily as a major obstacle to success on the pitch going forward. I accept that owning the real estate might provide some leverage in terms of dealing with banks should a loan be required but surely (?) that type of financial arrangement would be solely for capital investment. Not something I’d expect our owners to be looking at for the obvious reason of not owning the site and not needing at this point if ever of increasing the capacity. Sensible ownership, incremental improvements, good appointments with steady if unspectacular investment and not forgetting luck should imho see the football clubs on field achievements improve. I don’t believe the ownership of the real estate and footballing success are as closely linked as some.I can’t speak to the motives of the owners, but they are bound to consider their investment in the light of its durability and risk. It is surprising they bought the club with a 11-12-year lease and it would be even more surprising if they were able to sell it on with a shorter one. It’s not about securing loans. It’s about the ability of a third party to wreck your business at will.If there is no club and no early prospect of one capable of operating out of the stadium then consent would be granted for redevelopment in some form, if not by the council then over its head. The Duchatelet family could comfortably afford to sit out a lengthy hiatus.A possible scenario is that the council CPO the vacant site and sell it on to the club. This is what Thanet did with Dreamland to prevent the owner turning most of it into housing. But it’s not straightforward and the council certainly can’t use its CPO powers while it’s in use for football.5 -
Try telling this to @SoundAsa£ he almost gave me another heart attack yesterday.paulsturgess said:
Those following this thread are in serious danger of passing out from dizziness the amount of laps we’ve done of this circleDOUCHER said:
We have a secure position - do u really think in 15 years time, he's going to make us leave? If that was going to happen, he wouldn't have extended.Airman Brown said:
I don’t think he wants to force us out. But I am sceptical he will allow the club to get to a secure position either.DOUCHER said:
if he was going to force us out, he wouldn't have extended the lease, so other than buying it, extending the lease must be seen as good news, surely?Airman Brown said:
The rent is 1% of his valuation (probably closer to 2.5% in the real world) and trivial in the bigger picture. I think he’s in a reasonable position to hold the club to ransom and the club’s only real card is to threaten or actually go somewhere else to share again. So RD / his successor potentially loses the rent and has to pay the business rates, but ultimately the club has to settle or give up, because there is no easy third option that I can see.ShootersHillGuru said:
As I’d expect all very good and valid points but isn’t sitting behind the split ownership the prospect that The Valley will only ever be a football stadium for the reasons we already know regarding other development possibilities. On that basis unless the owner wants to increase the terms of the lease to a point where it’s not affordable to remain I don’t see it as an issue because if the football club were forced out for economic reasons the owner gets nothing in terms of revenue and is forced to go down the road of seeking planning permission with all the obstacles that entails which could take years ? With no certainty of success.Airman Brown said:
You should ask yourself why extending the lease back to its original length was a priority then. Investing in the football side, like investing in the ground, is compromised to a greater or lesser extent by the lack of certainty about the security of the status quo.ShootersHillGuru said:I’ll get my tin hat ready but although I’d be very happy to see the football club and both The Valley and Sparrows re united in ownership I really don’t see the current state of affairs necessarily as a major obstacle to success on the pitch going forward. I accept that owning the real estate might provide some leverage in terms of dealing with banks should a loan be required but surely (?) that type of financial arrangement would be solely for capital investment. Not something I’d expect our owners to be looking at for the obvious reason of not owning the site and not needing at this point if ever of increasing the capacity. Sensible ownership, incremental improvements, good appointments with steady if unspectacular investment and not forgetting luck should imho see the football clubs on field achievements improve. I don’t believe the ownership of the real estate and footballing success are as closely linked as some.I can’t speak to the motives of the owners, but they are bound to consider their investment in the light of its durability and risk. It is surprising they bought the club with a 11-12-year lease and it would be even more surprising if they were able to sell it on with a shorter one. It’s not about securing loans. It’s about the ability of a third party to wreck your business at will.If there is no club and no early prospect of one capable of operating out of the stadium then consent would be granted for redevelopment in some form, if not by the council then over its head. The Duchatelet family could comfortably afford to sit out a lengthy hiatus.A possible scenario is that the council CPO the vacant site and sell it on to the club. This is what Thanet did with Dreamland to prevent the owner turning most of it into housing. But it’s not straightforward and the council certainly can’t use its CPO powers while it’s in use for football.
75 minutes on the phone yesterday with "yes but Elfs", "what if Elfs".3 - Sponsored links:
-
Ahhh...thanks for clarifying Airman. Still seems very odd not to have corrected the original statement.Airman Brown said:
IIRC there was a shareholder meeting to agree to the transfer. This is the basis of the report. But the board subsequently changed its mind. The directors were under no obligation to act on the permission. It’s a bit like agreeing to buying a house and pulling out.YTS1978 said:
Catching up on the thread....but this was agreed, published on our own website and by the bbc, but then never happened? How strange?! I would call "bullshit" but what would i know? "It is what it is" as Lee Bowyer used to to say lolAirman Brown said:
This was agreed but never happened.YTS1978 said:
From BBC at the time:SoundAsa£ said:
Cannot open?YTS1978 said:A quick Google finds this...so i was kind of right. Seems like a lifetime ago!
https://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/mobile/football/teams/c/charlton_athletic/8001820.stm
Charlton have sold their training ground to the club's directors in an attempt to inject money into the club.
The deal for £1.5m sees three sites used for training sold to chairman Richard Murray and honorary life president Sir Maurice Hatter.
Murray told the club's official website: "It might look like asset-stripping is going on, but that certainly isn't the case."
Charlton are bottom of the Championship, 12 points from safety.
The sale of the club's training ground, the Community Trust's Charlton Park rugby ground and the youth academy's Pippenhall sports ground was approved by Charlton plc shareholders on Wednesday.
Murray's Alliance Trust Pensions Limited and Sir Maurice's registered charity, The Maurice Hatter Foundation, made the purchases.
"The three key points are that the assets are in friendly hands, it's a 25-year lease, and if the club wants the facilities back, it can buy them back," said Murray.
"The three resolutions were all approved, so that was good. We explained the logic behind the decisions, and that Charlton won't suffer but will only benefit."
"The 25-year lease means the club has security of tenure and if, by any chance, the club came into some money which it wanted to invest back into the training ground, it's got an option to buy the training ground back."
"As most people will be aware, the directors have pumped a lot of money into the club and unfortunately, people like myself have just come to the end of their financial clout."
A residential site owned by the club near to the Valley, Lansdowne Mews, has also been sold as part of the deal to Bob Whitehand.
Definitely not asset stripping!
The reason the assets were separated from the football company in 1992 was to protect them if the football company went bust - nothing more, nothing less. Holdings was a wholly owned subsidiary of the PLC (it had the same owners as the football company at all times). The PLC became Baton 2010 and Roland sold the football company out of it in 2020.0 -
Oh is that so.😏ElfsborgAddick said:
Try telling this to @SoundAsa£ he almost gave me another heart attack yesterday.paulsturgess said:
Those following this thread are in serious danger of passing out from dizziness the amount of laps we’ve done of this circleDOUCHER said:
We have a secure position - do u really think in 15 years time, he's going to make us leave? If that was going to happen, he wouldn't have extended.Airman Brown said:
I don’t think he wants to force us out. But I am sceptical he will allow the club to get to a secure position either.DOUCHER said:
if he was going to force us out, he wouldn't have extended the lease, so other than buying it, extending the lease must be seen as good news, surely?Airman Brown said:
The rent is 1% of his valuation (probably closer to 2.5% in the real world) and trivial in the bigger picture. I think he’s in a reasonable position to hold the club to ransom and the club’s only real card is to threaten or actually go somewhere else to share again. So RD / his successor potentially loses the rent and has to pay the business rates, but ultimately the club has to settle or give up, because there is no easy third option that I can see.ShootersHillGuru said:
As I’d expect all very good and valid points but isn’t sitting behind the split ownership the prospect that The Valley will only ever be a football stadium for the reasons we already know regarding other development possibilities. On that basis unless the owner wants to increase the terms of the lease to a point where it’s not affordable to remain I don’t see it as an issue because if the football club were forced out for economic reasons the owner gets nothing in terms of revenue and is forced to go down the road of seeking planning permission with all the obstacles that entails which could take years ? With no certainty of success.Airman Brown said:
You should ask yourself why extending the lease back to its original length was a priority then. Investing in the football side, like investing in the ground, is compromised to a greater or lesser extent by the lack of certainty about the security of the status quo.ShootersHillGuru said:I’ll get my tin hat ready but although I’d be very happy to see the football club and both The Valley and Sparrows re united in ownership I really don’t see the current state of affairs necessarily as a major obstacle to success on the pitch going forward. I accept that owning the real estate might provide some leverage in terms of dealing with banks should a loan be required but surely (?) that type of financial arrangement would be solely for capital investment. Not something I’d expect our owners to be looking at for the obvious reason of not owning the site and not needing at this point if ever of increasing the capacity. Sensible ownership, incremental improvements, good appointments with steady if unspectacular investment and not forgetting luck should imho see the football clubs on field achievements improve. I don’t believe the ownership of the real estate and footballing success are as closely linked as some.I can’t speak to the motives of the owners, but they are bound to consider their investment in the light of its durability and risk. It is surprising they bought the club with a 11-12-year lease and it would be even more surprising if they were able to sell it on with a shorter one. It’s not about securing loans. It’s about the ability of a third party to wreck your business at will.If there is no club and no early prospect of one capable of operating out of the stadium then consent would be granted for redevelopment in some form, if not by the council then over its head. The Duchatelet family could comfortably afford to sit out a lengthy hiatus.A possible scenario is that the council CPO the vacant site and sell it on to the club. This is what Thanet did with Dreamland to prevent the owner turning most of it into housing. But it’s not straightforward and the council certainly can’t use its CPO powers while it’s in use for football.
75 minutes on the phone yesterday with "yes but Elfs", "what if Elfs".
The feeling was entirely mutual.1 -
SoundAsa£ said:
Oh is that so.😏ElfsborgAddick said:
Try telling this to @SoundAsa£ he almost gave me another heart attack yesterday.paulsturgess said:
Those following this thread are in serious danger of passing out from dizziness the amount of laps we’ve done of this circleDOUCHER said:
We have a secure position - do u really think in 15 years time, he's going to make us leave? If that was going to happen, he wouldn't have extended.Airman Brown said:
I don’t think he wants to force us out. But I am sceptical he will allow the club to get to a secure position either.DOUCHER said:
if he was going to force us out, he wouldn't have extended the lease, so other than buying it, extending the lease must be seen as good news, surely?Airman Brown said:
The rent is 1% of his valuation (probably closer to 2.5% in the real world) and trivial in the bigger picture. I think he’s in a reasonable position to hold the club to ransom and the club’s only real card is to threaten or actually go somewhere else to share again. So RD / his successor potentially loses the rent and has to pay the business rates, but ultimately the club has to settle or give up, because there is no easy third option that I can see.ShootersHillGuru said:
As I’d expect all very good and valid points but isn’t sitting behind the split ownership the prospect that The Valley will only ever be a football stadium for the reasons we already know regarding other development possibilities. On that basis unless the owner wants to increase the terms of the lease to a point where it’s not affordable to remain I don’t see it as an issue because if the football club were forced out for economic reasons the owner gets nothing in terms of revenue and is forced to go down the road of seeking planning permission with all the obstacles that entails which could take years ? With no certainty of success.Airman Brown said:
You should ask yourself why extending the lease back to its original length was a priority then. Investing in the football side, like investing in the ground, is compromised to a greater or lesser extent by the lack of certainty about the security of the status quo.ShootersHillGuru said:I’ll get my tin hat ready but although I’d be very happy to see the football club and both The Valley and Sparrows re united in ownership I really don’t see the current state of affairs necessarily as a major obstacle to success on the pitch going forward. I accept that owning the real estate might provide some leverage in terms of dealing with banks should a loan be required but surely (?) that type of financial arrangement would be solely for capital investment. Not something I’d expect our owners to be looking at for the obvious reason of not owning the site and not needing at this point if ever of increasing the capacity. Sensible ownership, incremental improvements, good appointments with steady if unspectacular investment and not forgetting luck should imho see the football clubs on field achievements improve. I don’t believe the ownership of the real estate and footballing success are as closely linked as some.I can’t speak to the motives of the owners, but they are bound to consider their investment in the light of its durability and risk. It is surprising they bought the club with a 11-12-year lease and it would be even more surprising if they were able to sell it on with a shorter one. It’s not about securing loans. It’s about the ability of a third party to wreck your business at will.If there is no club and no early prospect of one capable of operating out of the stadium then consent would be granted for redevelopment in some form, if not by the council then over its head. The Duchatelet family could comfortably afford to sit out a lengthy hiatus.A possible scenario is that the council CPO the vacant site and sell it on to the club. This is what Thanet did with Dreamland to prevent the owner turning most of it into housing. But it’s not straightforward and the council certainly can’t use its CPO powers while it’s in use for football.
75 minutes on the phone yesterday with "yes but Elfs", "what if Elfs".
The feeling was entirely mutual.Rental of a property.Tenants normally not wanting to spend unnecessary money on said property is perfectly understandable.0 -
Of course……but what about when it IS necessary ……which I was trying to explain to you how that can be achieved to everyone’s advantage by negotiation and altering tenancy terms…..all doable.ElfsborgAddick said:SoundAsa£ said:
Oh is that so.😏ElfsborgAddick said:
Try telling this to @SoundAsa£ he almost gave me another heart attack yesterday.paulsturgess said:
Those following this thread are in serious danger of passing out from dizziness the amount of laps we’ve done of this circleDOUCHER said:
We have a secure position - do u really think in 15 years time, he's going to make us leave? If that was going to happen, he wouldn't have extended.Airman Brown said:
I don’t think he wants to force us out. But I am sceptical he will allow the club to get to a secure position either.DOUCHER said:
if he was going to force us out, he wouldn't have extended the lease, so other than buying it, extending the lease must be seen as good news, surely?Airman Brown said:
The rent is 1% of his valuation (probably closer to 2.5% in the real world) and trivial in the bigger picture. I think he’s in a reasonable position to hold the club to ransom and the club’s only real card is to threaten or actually go somewhere else to share again. So RD / his successor potentially loses the rent and has to pay the business rates, but ultimately the club has to settle or give up, because there is no easy third option that I can see.ShootersHillGuru said:
As I’d expect all very good and valid points but isn’t sitting behind the split ownership the prospect that The Valley will only ever be a football stadium for the reasons we already know regarding other development possibilities. On that basis unless the owner wants to increase the terms of the lease to a point where it’s not affordable to remain I don’t see it as an issue because if the football club were forced out for economic reasons the owner gets nothing in terms of revenue and is forced to go down the road of seeking planning permission with all the obstacles that entails which could take years ? With no certainty of success.Airman Brown said:
You should ask yourself why extending the lease back to its original length was a priority then. Investing in the football side, like investing in the ground, is compromised to a greater or lesser extent by the lack of certainty about the security of the status quo.ShootersHillGuru said:I’ll get my tin hat ready but although I’d be very happy to see the football club and both The Valley and Sparrows re united in ownership I really don’t see the current state of affairs necessarily as a major obstacle to success on the pitch going forward. I accept that owning the real estate might provide some leverage in terms of dealing with banks should a loan be required but surely (?) that type of financial arrangement would be solely for capital investment. Not something I’d expect our owners to be looking at for the obvious reason of not owning the site and not needing at this point if ever of increasing the capacity. Sensible ownership, incremental improvements, good appointments with steady if unspectacular investment and not forgetting luck should imho see the football clubs on field achievements improve. I don’t believe the ownership of the real estate and footballing success are as closely linked as some.I can’t speak to the motives of the owners, but they are bound to consider their investment in the light of its durability and risk. It is surprising they bought the club with a 11-12-year lease and it would be even more surprising if they were able to sell it on with a shorter one. It’s not about securing loans. It’s about the ability of a third party to wreck your business at will.If there is no club and no early prospect of one capable of operating out of the stadium then consent would be granted for redevelopment in some form, if not by the council then over its head. The Duchatelet family could comfortably afford to sit out a lengthy hiatus.A possible scenario is that the council CPO the vacant site and sell it on to the club. This is what Thanet did with Dreamland to prevent the owner turning most of it into housing. But it’s not straightforward and the council certainly can’t use its CPO powers while it’s in use for football.
75 minutes on the phone yesterday with "yes but Elfs", "what if Elfs".
The feeling was entirely mutual.Rental of a property.Tenants normally not wanting to spend unnecessary money on said property is perfectly understandable.
You saying (as you have said on numerous occasions on this forum and to me personally), that’s not going to be possible with Duchatalet is nonsense.
I gave instances of thousands and thousands of companies who are doing just that every day all over the world 24/7……I’ve even done it myself, rented a business property and improved it on more than one occasion.
A deal has to be struck by which both parties would benefit by which both us and Duchatalet would benefit.
Not absolutely ideal of course but if Duchatalet was going to be financially better off, then I am 100% certain he would be prepared to do a deal. Remember, it’s in his best interest to increase his income from The Valley, in doing so it would be a good business decision.
In the past you have repeatedly said that as long as he has ownership then we can’t do anything to improve The Valley and that we wouldn’t/can’t be interested in doing so.
You have changed your stance and are now saying ‘possibly wouldn’t want to do this’ from ‘never wanting to or able to, develop The Valley under his ownership.’
No wonder I was battering my head against the wall.
Your main argument seemed to be because it was going to cost us millions we wouldn’t be interested ………but we are dealing in millions Elfie, where the income would be vastly improved by…..low and behold……millions, ostensibly by both parties.0
