I support Charlton and will support them for the rest of my life wherever we play football.The Valley holds a special sentimental place for me as my recently departed father took me when i was seven, fifty one years ago.I can''t understand why any true Charlton supporter would not travel to the Greenwich Peninsular or wherever it is to carry on supporting the club.If we left the Valley i would be sad but i would think of the bigger picture and trust the directors to make the right decision.
dickplumb 5:19PM I support Charlton and will support them for the rest of my life wherever we play football.The Valley holds a special sentimental place for me as my recently departed father took me when i was seven, fifty one years ago.I can''t understand why any true Charlton supporter would not travel to the Greenwich Peninsular or wherever it is to carry on supporting the club.If we left the Valley i would be sad but i would think of the bigger picture and trust the directors to make the right decision.<
New stadium being built and land sold that "buggers" developing The Valley.
Quite apart from losing the ground with our soul who is going to want or be able to afford to pay £20 plus to park at the O2 on top of ticket prices to watch a home game?
Ah well 50 years supporting Charlton, as it will be next season for me, wasn't a bad innings I suppose.
Yes, I could see the conspiracy theory coming down the track, which is why I am trying to get people to understand that the land was not sold by the current owners. The sale predates their involvement and was taken forward by Steve Waggott, as chief executive, and Bob Whitehand. It arose from the club's weak financial position in 2009-10. Without breaching any confidences the likelihood of collusion between Whitehand and the current board is not very big.
I do agree that the development of this land significantly increases the chances of Charlton leaving The Valley in the medium term, but that would only make sense in the Premier League and nobody knows what the long-term intentions of the current owners might be anyway.
I do seem to remember back in the dark days of Sellout Park, that the club were actively (how active I don't know) pursing a move back to the Greenwich Peninsula - the old Gas Works site. The problem was (as I remember it) that the land was massively contaminated and the clean up costs were going to have to be met and were in the £00Ms.
At the time I personally would have been prepared to see us back there in the area rather than in Croydon as an second class tenant in somebody else's ground. I am sure most would have had the same view.
As it happens history took a different path and the bond between fans and club was re-forged around a ground that we all loved. The ground of course now bears virtually no resemblance to the old ground we remember with such fondness, but it represents a continuous link to the history of our club that a new ground just wouldn't bring.
That said, its the club I love. In our own stadium (if that's what these "proposals" provide), in a modern 40,000 seater stadium allowing us to compete with the best teams in the land, and in our historical geographical area, I would live with that, just as Arsenal fans have been able to cope with a move from Highbury, that Citeh fans have had to cope with a move to the Etihad. Same goes for Stoke, Bolton, and Derby fans to name but three teams.
Palace, West Ham, Chelsea and Spurs are actively pursuing new stadia proposals. Are we really going to turn our backs on a proposal, should it come to that, of a spanking new stadium on our doorstep?
Like I said at the start, this is entirely speculation but I would be prepared to consider it should it be a reality one day.
I think the key to moving is consultation with the fans, there will be a fans for and against it but as long as its in the immediate area I'm ok with it.
I lived in Sydenham when we played at SP so I found it very convenient as I could get home pretty quickly but I would sooner have seen us get promoted to the top flight at the Valley.
Len, I can see your concerns but I do think you are worrying about crossing a bridge we may never reach or even be heading towards.
Off it, I agree with you but the personal stuff about Len undermines your arguement
The immediate concern is development of the East stand being blocked by these flats.
Rather then all comparing the size of the supporter genitalia we should find out what, if anything, we can actually do as fans to improve the situation.
Southampton left The Dell, Derby the Baseball Ground, MAn City Maine Road, Sunderland Roker Park etc etc. If I live till I'm 100 I doubt Charlton will still be at The Valley. I'd hate to leave but if we moved to a new ground in the same vicinity that was our ground and it was in our best interests then so be it. It is a completely different scenario to moving to Selhurst.
Things change, life moves on, the majority of fans would still go. If we can't develop The Valley to capacity of 35k or more, which now seems unlikely, then moving is probably the only option if we want to be in the PL and be ale to compete.
Southampton left The Dell, Derby the Baseball Ground, MAn City Maine Road, Sunderland Roker Park etc etc. If I live till I'm 100 I doubt Charlton will still be at The Valley. I'd hate to leave but if we moved to a new ground in the same vicinity that was our ground and it was in our best interests then so be it. It is a completely different scenario to moving to Selhurst.
Things change, life moves on, the majority of fans would still go. If we can't develop The Valley to capacity of 35k or more, which now seems unlikely, then moving is probably the only option if we want to be in the PL and be ale to compete.
Just because others have done something it doesn't make it right.
I'd have thought the first sensible move would be to approach the new landowner to see if the land could be bought back.
I agree but is the will there?
Reading this thread it seems the majority are happy or accepting at least to leave The Valley if and when it comes to it.
I can see where you're coming from Len and it wasn't the same for me seeing top flight football at Selhurst, hated the bloody place and desperately wanted the club back at The Valley. However, there'll be a generation of fans to whom The Valley doesn't mean quite so much and they may cast envious eyes at grounds such as The Emirates or any other clubs new ground. It's all hypothetical at the moment anyway because we've no idea when we'll be back in the Prem and no idea just how long the current owners are in it for. However, we'd be foolish not to look closely at any proposed stadium development in the vicinity. Not saying it'll happen, but as Tottenham were looking at the Olympic stadium, what's to stop them casting an eye over any development on the peninsular? Also, regarding further Valley development, the 'ransom strip' notwithstanding, just how much further development would we be allowed to carry out as we're in a largely residential area?
I'd be gutted if we left, BUT if we had a first class stadium close by then you'd have to look to the future. When all's said and done, The Valley is a vastly different to the place I remember as a ten year old when I first went there and I could take up a spot close to the foot of the North East Floodlight base.
It's interesting how views change ,for emotional reasons particularly because of the wilderness years of 85-92 I hope we never leave the Valley , however I accept that the economy of football may make this difficult if we want to maintain our status as a CCC club looking towards the Prem .When we left I remember it being said it would be unthinkable that Arsenal would leave Highbury and Manchester City would leave Maine Road both of which have happened.It seems only a matter of time before Liverpool leave Anfield.
About eight years ago I was treated to hospitality at Derby's Pride Park ground when they played West Ham and before the game we were given the tour of the ground .I asked why had they left the Baseball Ground as it was a fine old stadium .In reply I was told that the fact that the Rams could sell 20 executive boxes meant that their income stream was considerably enhanced and it would be worth the income of 10,000 season tickets.
Derby Council made them an offer they couldn't refuse to move to what is ironically and unusually for a new stadium a more central location in an area that the local authority was redeveloping as a new brown field industrial site. The Rams moving there gave the new area a focal point.
No conspiracy theories but I could see a similar picture emerging with the Penisular development as like the Olympic Stadium it would need a core tenant to make it viable.
In the meantime I'd love the new owners to buy the required land back if possible to retain all options .
Have I missed somethimng but did we not play with our current capacity for the vast majority of the 7 seasons we spent in the PL. It was a perfectly adequate capacity then so why would it not be again in the future.
As I've said before on other threads, the Valley is a landlocked site that could only be developed for housing.
The value would be limited by this so there is less to be made from a move to another site. There is still scope to develop the Jimmy Seed stand and the corners which would increase the capacity.
Even if you cannot delvelop the east side. Another five thousand on the south and South west could easily be built. Thirty thousand plus will always be enough fo Charlton.
don't like all this talk about moving away from the valley - not bothered about the premiership - the valley and the championship is good enough for me - of course you have to look to progress but if it means moving to a soulless stadium by the 02, I'd sooner not, unless there is a mega buck premiership title winning budget to go with it - that might just sway it as i can't deny that being the Kings of England might just compensate for losing the valley but if its to just become another also ran i'd sooner stay where we are and be an also ran in a division below.
I'd rather see the Valley developed, although I wouldn't stop supporting Charlton or going to matches. However, if it means paying for parking in addition to the cost of a ticket, in my current financial circumstances, I would only be going to the occasional game.
Len, you asked who could afford to pay £20 to park at the O2. Well that would certainly include those who are currently being asked for £800 to use the West Stand car park at The Valley. That's an eye-watering £34.78 (less if there are any home cup games) per match. :-o
I'm not a big fan of moving away from the Valley, but the peninsular site actually looks easier to get to, certainly from central London. Obviously if you are used to getting a train in directly to Charlton station, it'll be harder, but the Jubilee line from London Bridge to North Greenwich is generally quicker than the train fom London Bridge to Charlton.
A stadium on the peninsula would be less accessible for the majority of supporters, not more, because the transport links are to the wrong places. How accessible it was by car would depend on parking, but expect to pay. However, leaving aside the issues of identity and emotional connection, I'd have thought tenure was significant. A stadium in which the club had no stake and revenues were creamed off by the landlord would provide a worrying lack of security. History tells us that ownership of the ground and the club being in the same hands is fundamental.
As for developing the south and south-west sides of the existing Valley, these schemes run into the same issue of how you get people out of the immediate area, as well as the need for vehicle access to the pitch. You can't just put more people into Floyd Road, where there are both capacity and segregation issues, so the only solutions are Lansdowne Mews - again -or a massive investment to get supporters out via The Heights. A significant Jimmy Seed Stand development also entails demolishing Sam Bartram Close, which would itself require planning permission.
If the suggestion, that I read somewhere else, that we were always going to be relegated from the Premier League sooner or later is accurate then would we not be better off with a smaller ground that is affordable in the second tier of English football, than a super stadium that becomes a financial burden outside of the top flight?
Even if we could get the planning to increase The Valley to 40,000; even if we could afford to pay for it; even if we could fill it in the Premier League what happens when we are relegated to the second division again?
I'd rather take out chances at The Valley with a capacity of 27,000.
This doesn't mean that I want the option to increase it to be permanently removed, but I don't think it makes sense to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds now to buy back a plot of land with no planning to ensure that we can increase The Valley if we can satisfy the criteria above at some point in the future.
I agree with you KHA. If the will and the need to increase the Valley to 40k was there at some point in the future, i'm sure a few houses could be bought up and demolished or something or some 'protected walkways' be built which would allow sufficient access. Until we're absolutely bursting at the seams at the Valley, i'd forget about it.
The way people are talking you'd have though we had a capacity of 15000 like we had in the mid 90s.
27000 is a perfectly respectable size, and there would be no need to expand unless we had a significant stay in the PL, and realistically we will never be permanent members of the PL.
Many clubs have similarly sized grounds, Norwich have 27k, Bolton 28k, West Brom 27k, Stoke 28k, Wigan 25k, Fulham 26k, Cardiff 27k, Reading 24k, Palace 26k, while Swansea are smaller at 21k, Millwall 20k and QPR 18k. Even the likes of Birmingham (30k) and Leicester (33k) aren't much bigger
A stadium on the peninsula would be less accessible for the majority of supporters, not more, because the transport links are to the wrong places. How accessible it was by car would depend on parking, but expect to pay. However, leaving aside the issues of identity and emotional connection, I'd have thought tenure was significant. A stadium in which the club had no stake and revenues were creamed off by the landlord would provide a worrying lack of security. History tells us that ownership of the ground and the club being in the same hands is fundamental.
I think this is key and the speculative blog seems to suggest a stadium built by developers and not owned by the user. Of course Charlton could be part of a consortium and finance the cost and retain beneficial ownership in any future development.
is there really much demand for another concert venue in London? particularly and outdoor one of 40k and with a larger footprint like that, doesn't look like it would fit nor suit football
If we could meet all of the criteria below then I'd be in favour of a move. But somehow, I just can't see it happening:
• Club must own the freehold on both the stadium and the land on which it is built. We can’t risk doing a Cov and losing £1m a year on a ground that isn’t ours, or worse still finding ourselves with a hostile landlord that wants us out. • Must be filling The Valley and regularly turning people away. • Must be an established premiership club – 3 yrs or more and looking safe. • New ground must be bigger than The Valley, I’d think somewhere between 35k and 45k. • Ground must be in the borough or within 5 miles of The Valley. • Transport must be easier for the majority of supporters. • Matchday experience (facilities) to be better for all supporters. • No hike in ticket prices. • Plans in place to ensure that new stadium averages at least 80% capacity, preferably more. • No ground sharing with other sports teams and no other sports events to be played during the football season. • Action taken to preserve the memory of The Valley: Some sort of maintained monument on the site; permanent display at the new ground; perhaps a book/dvd as well.
Comments
;o)
I do agree that the development of this land significantly increases the chances of Charlton leaving The Valley in the medium term, but that would only make sense in the Premier League and nobody knows what the long-term intentions of the current owners might be anyway.
I do seem to remember back in the dark days of Sellout Park, that the club were actively (how active I don't know) pursing a move back to the Greenwich Peninsula - the old Gas Works site. The problem was (as I remember it) that the land was massively contaminated and the clean up costs were going to have to be met and were in the £00Ms.
At the time I personally would have been prepared to see us back there in the area rather than in Croydon as an second class tenant in somebody else's ground. I am sure most would have had the same view.
As it happens history took a different path and the bond between fans and club was re-forged around a ground that we all loved. The ground of course now bears virtually no resemblance to the old ground we remember with such fondness, but it represents a continuous link to the history of our club that a new ground just wouldn't bring.
That said, its the club I love. In our own stadium (if that's what these "proposals" provide), in a modern 40,000 seater stadium allowing us to compete with the best teams in the land, and in our historical geographical area, I would live with that, just as Arsenal fans have been able to cope with a move from Highbury, that Citeh fans have had to cope with a move to the Etihad. Same goes for Stoke, Bolton, and Derby fans to name but three teams.
Palace, West Ham, Chelsea and Spurs are actively pursuing new stadia proposals. Are we really going to turn our backs on a proposal, should it come to that, of a spanking new stadium on our doorstep?
Like I said at the start, this is entirely speculation but I would be prepared to consider it should it be a reality one day.
I also, by the way, accept what Airman says about there being no conspiracy between former directors and the current owners.
I lived in Sydenham when we played at SP so I found it very convenient as I could get home pretty quickly but I would sooner have seen us get promoted to the top flight at the Valley.
Len, I can see your concerns but I do think you are worrying about crossing a bridge we may never reach or even be heading towards.
Off it, I agree with you but the personal stuff about Len undermines your arguement
The immediate concern is development of the East stand being blocked by these flats.
Rather then all comparing the size of the supporter genitalia we should find out what, if anything, we can actually do as fans to improve the situation.
I'd have thought the first sensible move would be to approach the new landowner to see if the land could be bought back.
Reading this thread it seems the majority are happy or accepting at least to leave The Valley if and when it comes to it.
Things change, life moves on, the majority of fans would still go. If we can't develop The Valley to capacity of 35k or more, which now seems unlikely, then moving is probably the only option if we want to be in the PL and be ale to compete.
In my opinion.
I'd be gutted if we left, BUT if we had a first class stadium close by then you'd have to look to the future. When all's said and done, The Valley is a vastly different to the place I remember as a ten year old when I first went there and I could take up a spot close to the foot of the North East Floodlight base.
About eight years ago I was treated to hospitality at Derby's Pride Park ground when they played West Ham and before the game we were given the tour of the ground .I asked why had they left the Baseball Ground as it was a fine old stadium .In reply I was told that the fact that the Rams could sell 20 executive boxes meant that their income stream was considerably enhanced and it would be worth the income of 10,000 season tickets.
Derby Council made them an offer they couldn't refuse to move to what is ironically and unusually for a new stadium a more central location in an area that the local authority was redeveloping as a new brown field industrial site. The Rams moving there gave the new area a focal point.
No conspiracy theories but I could see a similar picture emerging with the Penisular development as like the Olympic Stadium it would need a core tenant to make it viable.
In the meantime I'd love the new owners to buy the required land back if possible to retain all options .
The value would be limited by this so there is less to be made from a move to another site. There is still scope to develop the Jimmy Seed stand and the corners which would increase the capacity.
As for developing the south and south-west sides of the existing Valley, these schemes run into the same issue of how you get people out of the immediate area, as well as the need for vehicle access to the pitch. You can't just put more people into Floyd Road, where there are both capacity and segregation issues, so the only solutions are Lansdowne Mews - again -or a massive investment to get supporters out via The Heights. A significant Jimmy Seed Stand development also entails demolishing Sam Bartram Close, which would itself require planning permission.
Even if we could get the planning to increase The Valley to 40,000; even if we could afford to pay for it; even if we could fill it in the Premier League what happens when we are relegated to the second division again?
I'd rather take out chances at The Valley with a capacity of 27,000.
This doesn't mean that I want the option to increase it to be permanently removed, but I don't think it makes sense to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds now to buy back a plot of land with no planning to ensure that we can increase The Valley if we can satisfy the criteria above at some point in the future.
27000 is a perfectly respectable size, and there would be no need to expand unless we had a significant stay in the PL, and realistically we will never be permanent members of the PL.
Many clubs have similarly sized grounds, Norwich have 27k, Bolton 28k, West Brom 27k, Stoke 28k, Wigan 25k, Fulham 26k, Cardiff 27k, Reading 24k, Palace 26k, while Swansea are smaller at 21k, Millwall 20k and QPR 18k. Even the likes of Birmingham (30k) and Leicester (33k) aren't much bigger
Time will tell.
• Club must own the freehold on both the stadium and the land on which it is built. We can’t risk doing a Cov and losing £1m a year on a ground that isn’t ours, or worse still finding ourselves with a hostile landlord that wants us out.
• Must be filling The Valley and regularly turning people away.
• Must be an established premiership club – 3 yrs or more and looking safe.
• New ground must be bigger than The Valley, I’d think somewhere between 35k and 45k.
• Ground must be in the borough or within 5 miles of The Valley.
• Transport must be easier for the majority of supporters.
• Matchday experience (facilities) to be better for all supporters.
• No hike in ticket prices.
• Plans in place to ensure that new stadium averages at least 80% capacity, preferably more.
• No ground sharing with other sports teams and no other sports events to be played during the football season.
• Action taken to preserve the memory of The Valley: Some sort of maintained monument on the site; permanent display at the new ground; perhaps a book/dvd as well.