The normal reasons for building a new ground are a) the existing ground is too small (e.g. Arsenal) b) it's easier to build a new ground, rather than rebuilding the existing one (e.g. Millwall) c) moving from a lucrative site (maybe wanted by Tesco's) to a cheaper site release moneys to build the new stadium or pay off club debts (e.g. Yeovil)
I'm not sure what the benefit of moving to the peninsula would be, as The Valley's location is unlikely to be worth that much more than the peninsula location, and we don't need a larger ground
Good post. Good summary. The Valley is an emotional issue, but we need to keep banging away at the rational question you pose.
The normal reasons for building a new ground are a) the existing ground is too small (e.g. Arsenal) b) it's easier to build a new ground, rather than rebuilding the existing one (e.g. Millwall) c) moving from a lucrative site (maybe wanted by Tesco's) to a cheaper site release moneys to build the new stadium or pay off club debts (e.g. Yeovil)
There is also the route taken by Coventry and Swansea - a privately owned consortium (perhaps with some local authority support) build a new stadium and bring in a football club as a tenant and then host gigs, rugby matches etc to pay the rent.
The normal reasons for building a new ground are a) the existing ground is too small (e.g. Arsenal) b) it's easier to build a new ground, rather than rebuilding the existing one (e.g. Millwall) c) moving from a lucrative site (maybe wanted by Tesco's) to a cheaper site release moneys to build the new stadium or pay off club debts (e.g. Yeovil)
There is also the route taken by Coventry and Swansea - a privately owned consortium (perhaps with some local authority support) build a new stadium and bring in a football club as a tenant and then host gigs, rugby matches etc to pay the rent.
Just what the peninsula needs, a venue for bands to play in. ;-)
"Contrary to reports in the press, I have not told anyone that he club is for sale for £40million" - Michael Slater in today's programme.
Not the same thing as saying outright that the club is not for sale, or that something in the region of £40million wouldn't enable you to buy it, is it?
Anyone know which firm of accountants produced the report?
Well of course the club is for sale, it is no secret the current owners are deep in the sticky smelly brown stuff financially speaking. How that situation will be resolved is much more worrying to me! It's nothing personal against any of the VotV gang if I were to say I truly and completely hope they are wrong on this one, as unlikely as that seems.
Interesting that it says the the Club, owners, were willing to sell one of better players for 2-3m and replace them/bolster the squad with free transfers. That is all well and good, and sensible in my opinion, except that now with the contract situation the whole squad if sold wouldn't raise 2m. The whole report was written to show the Club in good light but when that includes future transfer payments including 700k for McGinty which we are never going to see now it shows what a parlose state our finances are in. Piss up and brewery spring to mind.
Interesting that it says the the Club, owners, were willing to sell one of better players for 2-3m and replace them/bolster the squad with free transfers. That is all well and good, and sensible in my opinion, except that now with the contract situation the whole squad if sold wouldn't raise 2m. The whole report was written to show the Club in good light but when that includes future transfer payments including 700k for McGinty which we are never going to see now it shows what a parlose state our finances are in. Piss up and brewery spring to mind.
The report has £320k from the second McGinty brother. I'm told he exists and did got to United with Sean, but I'd never even heard of him.
The sums don't add up for having a stadium for outside gigs in Greenwich, it's 10 years too late
Vanity project for the Royal Borough? I did try to put these matters to Cllr Roberts when he marched past this afternoon but I'm afraid there isn't much brotherly love lost there...
AB, according to the CAFC official site Richard Wood signed a 1 year deal, not two, so just Church, Harriott and Wilson not out of contract next summer.
AB, according to the CAFC official site Richard Wood signed a 1 year deal, not two, so just Church, Harriott and Wilson not out of contract next summer.
Great bit of journalism Rick, s**t awful news. Did you manage to rustle up a millionaire or two at the same time or are you leaving the easy bit for us to do?
Who grants the AVC ? Surely if there is legs in it , the AVC application will be turned down due to the borough wanting the site
RBG are empowered to maintain the list of community assets in the borough, it is to them that we've applied for ACV status. No application to protect a professional football teams stadium has been turned down so far, from Nuneaton Borough to Manchester United they've all been accepted, would be very odd if RBG turned us down.
They will just approve it because it won't make any difference.
The normal reasons for building a new ground are a) the existing ground is too small (e.g. Arsenal) b) it's easier to build a new ground, rather than rebuilding the existing one (e.g. Millwall) c) moving from a lucrative site (maybe wanted by Tesco's) to a cheaper site release moneys to build the new stadium or pay off club debts (e.g. Yeovil)
I'm not sure what the benefit of moving to the peninsula would be, as The Valley's location is unlikely to be worth that much more than the peninsula location, and we don't need a larger ground
Good post. Good summary. The Valley is an emotional issue, but we need to keep banging away at the rational question you pose.
Well I'm not sure what the disposal value would be of the Valley site, redeveloped or otherwise, but the above assumes that the capital burden would be with the club.
What if the Council built the stadium - it's in the borough plan after all - and we entered into a long term lease? That would put money into the owners' pockets, fulfil at least one element of the borough plan (probably more) and provide new revenue streams for the Council, and the ACV wouldn't matter a jot.
What if the stadium was built privately by a third party?
I wrote a long time ago on here that I felt the Valley was at risk because I couldn't see another way these guys could make money from the club. Reading the Voice today I felt a knot in my stomach, and anger that the Council once again are implicated. Let's hope it's just the owners building their part.
In a time when we are meant to be protecting the environment, how stupid would it be to knock down a perfectly good and fit for purpose stadium while building a new one along the road? But that's property developers and politicians for you...a dangerous combination.
Airman: It is interesting to know that the losses for last season were the same as in League 1 at £7M (as predicted by the Trust back in March). I am therefore confused why the "funding requirements for Charlton's operations rose from £5.8m in 2011/12 to an estimate £8.1m last year" - an increase of £2.3M.
Do you have the numbers on this please as this is critical to understanding what it takes for the club to stay in the game... are there loans being repaid or a rise in player registrations / drop in fees in... or perhaps a typo?
It's not a typo, it's their own figure. I suspect it has to do with the way the club was starved of money last summer, but I'd have to dig deeper into the numbers to give you an answer.
Comments
a) the existing ground is too small (e.g. Arsenal)
b) it's easier to build a new ground, rather than rebuilding the existing one (e.g. Millwall)
c) moving from a lucrative site (maybe wanted by Tesco's) to a cheaper site release moneys to build the new stadium or pay off club debts (e.g. Yeovil)
There is also the route taken by Coventry and Swansea - a privately owned consortium (perhaps with some local authority support) build a new stadium and bring in a football club as a tenant and then host gigs, rugby matches etc to pay the rent.
;-)
The fourth biggest average championship attendance last season? Home only (9th highest) or home and away?
In the report was it?
Airman, any prospect of some form of subscription becoming available before the next edition? If so, count me in.
What if the Council built the stadium - it's in the borough plan after all - and we entered into a long term lease? That would put money into the owners' pockets, fulfil at least one element of the borough plan (probably more) and provide new revenue streams for the Council, and the ACV wouldn't matter a jot.
What if the stadium was built privately by a third party?
I wrote a long time ago on here that I felt the Valley was at risk because I couldn't see another way these guys could make money from the club. Reading the Voice today I felt a knot in my stomach, and anger that the Council once again are implicated. Let's hope it's just the owners building their part.
Apparently.
1. The Internet
2. The Freedom of Information Law
Lets use them...
The way it should work is that you add the UK postage charge to the quoted figure to get to the right total amount.
Do you have the numbers on this please as this is critical to understanding what it takes for the club to stay in the game... are there loans being repaid or a rise in player registrations / drop in fees in... or perhaps a typo?