I don't want to let the discussion of a move alone just yet.
To add to my list earlier in this thread I would like to resonate with a point made by Len Glover and others, and that is the point about Charlton Athletic should own their own ground. Hopefully that means The Valley.
In thinking about Colchester's ground, and certainly the toolbox, I find both places depressing in the extreme in terms of exciting places to be. Brightons new stadium is different, if only because of the circumstances of it's existence, and that it is a development on the soulessness of, say, Middlesboro's new place amongst some others.
However all this brings to mind the brilliant book, and it's reprints, 'The Football Grounds of Great Britain by Simon Inglis
Inglis absolutely gets it about the special and individual nature of football grounds, despite many of the earlier stadia designed by Archibald Leach having similarities. The thing about The Valley, OUR Valley is it's distinctive and individual nature, as well as it's overall splendidness.
IF we were to ever move, the design and architectural effort would be an absolute deal breaker.
I don't want to be like the Emirates for example, certainly not the Toolbox, or Boro, or Colchester et al. I want flair and imagination, I want a return to the good old Zig Zag roof, I want the place to be nestled in the harmony of it's surroundings, I want it to look only like Charlton on TV.
My fear is that it will be a prefabricated off the shelf effort, designed by a cold hearted individual with no recognition of the journey that has gone before, and that frankly it could be anywhere, and it will become nowhere.
When Arsenal were developing Highbury before their eventual move, they had painted a backdrop of a crowd to cover the building works. Totally unnecessary, an additional expense, but the idea had at least come from someone with some sensitivity, and it was an effort to recognise what the whole football experience for Arsenal fans was all about. I want some of that before there is any thought of a move.
Millwall lost 50% at least of what it was to be Millwall when they moved from the old Den. I don't want the same thing to happen to us.
Charlton Athletic Football Club will I hope be around in another 100 years time. If anyone thinks that we can get there without blood and turmoil and yes a new home then that's the dose of reality that's needed. It's not just about us. It's about those that follow. The model of football stadia built in the heart of the community is long been dead and over time will be completely of a bygone age. The opportunity to get to one of the best and most exciting locations left in London won't come around again. If the future is secured then I'm not totally opposed. But I still want to hear the argument.
I agree but a stadium is not the only thing needed for success. You could argue that while TV money far outstrips ticket income the stadium becomes less important as a source of income, relatively. Of course it's emotional and historic importance remains.
Stay and expand the Valley? Great. Move to a bigger local stadium with more income potential? Also great IMO if done right but the stadium is not the only cause of success and failure. The business plan, the level of investment and is it debt or equity, the use of the academy or not, stability in management and many other things will also be key to CAFC being successful under any owners. The Valley is important but it is not the only ingredient for success.
I fully agree. And as I pointed out an hour ago:
Among clubs who have reached the Premiership in the last five years while remaining in a ground neither bigger nor more comfortable than the Valley -and with no immediate plans to move - are Norwich, Fulham, Palace, and West Brom. Among clubs who would be there if they hadn't effed it up on the playing side but fall in to that category of stadium are QPR, Blackburn and Wolves. Other clubs who are doing better than us, but where I doubt the stadium's revenue earning capacity is greater than the Valley, are Swansea, Wigan and Watford.
I'm still waiting for a single person who thinks we need to move, in order to be 'successful', to explain away all the cases above. Especially Fulham who could also have gone to sparkly new places such as Earls Court, but have instead chosen to redevelop Craven Cottage.
If a sound proposal to move was put before me allowing me to feel that it was a way of securing our long term future then I would be happy to embrace that. Football finances is changing at an alarming pace and there will be casualties. Of that I have no doubt. Being part of something that puts Charlton, my team on a better footing to allow it to take advantage of those changes to football finances and fit in better with what ordinary people want in entertainment is IMHO a good thing. Football is nothing like what it was in 1961 and nor are the people who watch it. Life changes and you have to change with it. Sadly I don't see that change being possible at The Valley unless we are content to always be little old Charlton.
Good post SHG ... I do not want to move from the Valley ... but if ... and it is a total 'if' at the moment, everything is conjecture ... if a move ensured that my son and my grandson could watch Charlton for their lifetimes, then, I would support it. However, if there is any justifiable way we could stay at the Valley and the club can survive, then that is my only option.
But ... again ... this is all conjecture ... wait and see.
In cold hard hearted dollar signs the peninsula is an opportunity to develop a piece of land that sits in the very heart of London in a way not seen on a similar scale since the blitz. The O2 arena and complex is already seen as one of Europe's top venues and I can clearly see why any developer would relish the chance to build on that success and create London's "Las Vegas" albeit on a much smaller scale. It already boasts a large underground station Thames Clipper terminal plus the slightly odd Emirates cable car linking it to the DLR network. It will no doubt provide along with luxury housing more restaurants, shops and bars. There is room to include a football stadium and I have little doubt that should the team playing there achieve any success and maintain premiership status it would be extremely well place to attract both new permanent and floating fans.
The Valley is our home and a very big part of our history and very close to my heart. I started going in 1961. The feelings I have for it will not be mirrored by any new owners who only see the benefits by way of a return and or cudos. It's success is ultimately their success and it's failure their failure.
If a sound proposal to move was put before me allowing me to feel that it was a way of securing our long term future then I would be happy to embrace that. Football finances is changing at an alarming pace and there will be casualties. Of that I have no doubt. Being part of something that puts Charlton, my team on a better footing to allow it to take advantage of those changes to football finances and fit in better with what ordinary people want in entertainment is IMHO a good thing. Football is nothing like what it was in 1961 and nor are the people who watch it. Life changes and you have to change with it. Sadly I don't see that change being possible at The Valley unless we are content to always be little old Charlton.
thats a very good post
Agreed. Pretty much how I see it IF we are taken over and IF there are plans to move.
Not to forget, a "sales brochure" for the Club advocating the potential for a move to the Peninsular. Regardless of one's position on the merits of a move, it's been brought into play by the current owners and, one can confidently assume, the Borough.
nail on head its not a case of jumping to conclusions its a case of reading what the forsale advert was offering
we will need to move Prague, if the new buyers see us as part of the greenwich penninsula project -If they don't I see your point! The positives are that we would have a positive future and only be a few miles down the road in an even better ground than we have now- which isn't too shoddy.
The only way a move would be acceptable to me would be if the fans were allowed to have a major input into it's design and features. For me that would basically mean a slightly larger and improved version of our beloved Valley, a complete wrap around stadium. I would like to feel that I was still visiting the Valley, but in a nicer location.
The clever thing to do would be to build alongside the boxes and corporate stuff that makes a lot of money plus non-match day earning potential (hotels, conferencing, casinos,etc is build a big safe standing area behind one goal ("The Bartram End") that would not only provide a bigger capacity but allow a cheaper option to watch Charlton.
But this is really crossing a bridge before we have come to it.
When and if there are new owners we need to find out what the long term plan is. One of the questions is "What are the plans for the Valley?" but only one.
1. Who owns the Club?
2. What is the business plan?
3. What the investment level?
4. What are the plans for the Stadium?
5. What the plans for the Academy?
6. What is the exit strategy?
Some people will sneer and say how dare we fans ask questions when there hasn't yet been a takeover but they are not just Charlton questions. Every fan at every club should be interested in the same six questions
I wish you all the luck in the world in getting the answers to these questions.You've waited patiently for 3 years to get them and have got zip.
Don't go holding your breath that you'll get them any time soon/ever!
Certainly not holding my breath but you're right it has been frustrating that on the few occasions that Slater and others have been available they've not answered in full (perhaps in some cases understandably) but the they are still the questions that need answers IMO as much of the speculation above shows. A simple "we're staying at the Valley" or "we're planning to move in X years time" would at least focus people.
And maybe, just maybe, someone at the SLP looking to pad out another article with info from Charlton Life might want to nick the questions for their paper or for the press conference when the new owners show themselves ; - )
Problem is H, I would take nothing that any statement given by any member of a football hierarchy as read these days. It would all just be hot air as far as I'm concerned.They've,on the whole,made a living out of secrets and bullsh** and they're not going to stop now.
What I still haven't got is why would a developer want a football stadium on prime land when they can build 100s of riverside apartments instead at a much greater profit.
Yes, there is the section 106 community and social housing needed for developments but why pay £18m for a football club and then have to knock down the Valley for housing whist building a new stadium on prime land. Why not buy some brickfield site in Charlton, Woolwich or Thamesmead and build the social housing there?
For me it doesn't yet add up.
My guess is that the Americans want to buy a sports team and the relatively cheap, London based Charlton Athletics Soccer Franchise fit the bill.
If they can get us into the EPL then even at the Valley they can pay off the debt and re-coup their investment in a few years. They may want to get in on the richest league outside of NFL/NBA/MLB and just make money or they want to promote something or other. Doesn't the guy at Arsenal (kronkie?) also own other sports teams and the Liverpool owners also have the flukey undeserving world series winners Boston Red Sox
They may well want to a new stadium as well at some point but why does it have to be on the peninsula?
12 pages and counting on this thread of going round and round in circles. Let's face it, nobody is going to buy us unless it's a rich fan who's got plenty of money to burn in the way that Jack Walker did with Blackburn. There is no business case for buying a club that's £40m in debt, losing £7m per year and plying its trade in the Championship. The business case lies in property development and whether we like it or not the club is probably heading for the Peninsula to play its football .Whether this happens, only time will tell. We've had so may false dawn over the last couple of years that I'll only believe it when it's on the O/S. In any event, I've been supporting Charlton since 1965, my son's middle name is Charlton. It's highly unlikely that I'm going to stop going if we move ground. so, onwards and upwards...Que sera, sera Whatever will be, will be. The future's not ours to see. Que sera, sera. What will be, will be...
OK here is another one for all the 'movers' and then I will let it rest for now
Blackburn and Bolton. About, what, eight miles apart. Almost as close as Charlton and Millwall anyway.
One has a shithole of a stadium. The other has a shiny new one
Both are doing pretty badly. Both got relegated. Bolton have debts about the size of Greece's national debt.
Kindly explain why and how the Reebok has given Bolton an advantage over Blackburn, in the same way as presumably Peninsula Towers would give us an advantage over Millwall (there must be an advantage because we are allegedly terrified they will get it)
Charlton Athletic Football Club will I hope be around in another 100 years time. If anyone thinks that we can get there without blood and turmoil and yes a new home then that's the dose of reality that's needed. It's not just about us. It's about those that follow. The model of football stadia built in the heart of the community is long been dead and over time will be completely of a bygone age. The opportunity to get to one of the best and most exciting locations left in London won't come around again. If the future is secured then I'm not totally opposed. But I still want to hear the argument.
I agree but a stadium is not the only thing needed for success. You could argue that while TV money far outstrips ticket income the stadium becomes less important as a source of income, relatively. Of course it's emotional and historic importance remains.
Stay and expand the Valley? Great. Move to a bigger local stadium with more income potential? Also great IMO if done right but the stadium is not the only cause of success and failure. The business plan, the level of investment and is it debt or equity, the use of the academy or not, stability in management and many other things will also be key to CAFC being successful under any owners. The Valley is important but it is not the only ingredient for success.
I fully agree. And as I pointed out an hour ago:
Among clubs who have reached the Premiership in the last five years while remaining in a ground neither bigger nor more comfortable than the Valley -and with no immediate plans to move - are Norwich, Fulham, Palace, and West Brom. Among clubs who would be there if they hadn't effed it up on the playing side but fall in to that category of stadium are QPR, Blackburn and Wolves. Other clubs who are doing better than us, but where I doubt the stadium's revenue earning capacity is greater than the Valley, are Swansea, Wigan and Watford.
I'm still waiting for a single person who thinks we need to move, in order to be 'successful', to explain away all the cases above. Especially Fulham who could also have gone to sparkly new places such as Earls Court, but have instead chosen to redevelop Craven Cottage.
The thing about those clubs you mention PA is that none have the opportunity to move one mile up the road to one of the most attractive and exciting areas in London. I believe that we can achieve success again at The Valley but the future of football is not about stadiums stuck in a residential backwater but maximising the potential and possibilities that come with the right business plan and as importantly the right location. As I posted earlier. The chance of moving to Greenwich peninsula will not come around again and if we don't take the plunge we have to live with the consequences of that inaction. Don't get me wrong. I am still very much in need of hearing the arguments but I can see very clear reasons why the peninsula is an attractive option.
OK here is another one for all the 'movers' and then I will let it rest for now
Blackburn and Bolton. About, what, eight miles apart. Almost as close as Charlton and Millwall anyway.
One has a shithole of a stadium. The other has a shiny new one
Both are doing pretty badly. Both got relegated. Bolton have debts about the size of Greece's national debt.
Kindly explain why and how the Reebok has given Bolton an advantage over Blackburn, in the same way as presumably Peninsula Towers would give us an advantage over Millwall (there must be an advantage because we are allegedly terrified they will get it)
Well?
Have I missed something, where has it been said we are all terrified of Millwall getting a ground near the O2?
OK here is another one for all the 'movers' and then I will let it rest for now
Blackburn and Bolton. About, what, eight miles apart. Almost as close as Charlton and Millwall anyway.
One has a shithole of a stadium. The other has a shiny new one
Both are doing pretty badly. Both got relegated. Bolton have debts about the size of Greece's national debt.
Kindly explain why and how the Reebok has given Bolton an advantage over Blackburn, in the same way as presumably Peninsula Towers would give us an advantage over Millwall (there must be an advantage because we are allegedly terrified they will get it)
Well?
Because a shiny new stadium in Bolton/Blackburn is a hell of a lot different than a shiny new stadium in LONDON
12 pages and counting on this thread of going round and round in circles. Let's face it, nobody is going to buy us unless it's a rich fan who's got plenty of money to burn in the way that Jack Walker did with Blackburn. There is no business case for buying a club that's £40m in debt, losing £7m per year and plying its trade in the Championship. The business case lies in property development and whether we like it or not the club is probably heading for the Peninsula to play its football .Whether this happens, only time will tell. We've had so may false dawn over the last couple of years that I'll only believe it when it's on the O/S. In any event, I've been supporting Charlton since 1965, my son's middle name is Charlton. It's highly unlikely that I'm going to stop going if we move ground. so, onwards and upwards...Que sera, sera Whatever will be, will be. The future's not ours to see. Que sera, sera. What will be, will be...
I ask again is there not a "business case" for owning your own ground?
I think we are underestimating the size of the development on the peninsular, and the potential opportunity it could bring, its not just about the housing ,if you owned an area of land that size, and could buy up the people that are on the adjoining lands, Excluding AEG then you have an area of land similar to the Canary Wharf site, look at that area 20/30 years ago and you now have some of the most prime land in the country, now for some reason un known to most they want a multi function sports and entertainment venue in that area , what you wouldn't want to do in that area is build affordable housing smack bang in the middle of a real prime peace of land , but if you could build those houses in the RBG and not impact on your prime estate then it makes sense
OK here is another one for all the 'movers' and then I will let it rest for now
Blackburn and Bolton. About, what, eight miles apart. Almost as close as Charlton and Millwall anyway.
One has a shithole of a stadium. The other has a shiny new one
Both are doing pretty badly. Both got relegated. Bolton have debts about the size of Greece's national debt.
Kindly explain why and how the Reebok has given Bolton an advantage over Blackburn, in the same way as presumably Peninsula Towers would give us an advantage over Millwall (there must be an advantage because we are allegedly terrified they will get it)
Well?
Because a shiny new stadium in Bolton/Blackburn is a hell of a lot different than a shiny new stadium in LONDON
Not just London, but an area that is continually being developed and a stone's throw from Canary Wharf. Can't compare this area with Bolton/Blackburn. As an aside I though Blackburn's stadium was decent.
OK here is another one for all the 'movers' and then I will let it rest for now
Blackburn and Bolton. About, what, eight miles apart. Almost as close as Charlton and Millwall anyway.
One has a shithole of a stadium. The other has a shiny new one
Both are doing pretty badly. Both got relegated. Bolton have debts about the size of Greece's national debt.
Kindly explain why and how the Reebok has given Bolton an advantage over Blackburn, in the same way as presumably Peninsula Towers would give us an advantage over Millwall (there must be an advantage because we are allegedly terrified they will get it)
Well?
Have I missed something, where has it been said we are all terrified of Millwall getting a ground near the O2?
It is a known fact (indeed I have documentary evidence) that Charlton have been discussing with GBC the possibilities of a Peninsula site for several years; since whenever GBC made its overall ambitions known. Charlton directors in small-group discussion with fans explained that a key reason to be interested in this was defensive - to stop some other buggers going there. This seemed a reasonable argument to fans like me who heard it at the time. However the only club who seemed seriously interested were West Ham. As I said above, they are definitely going to the Olympic. The only other club in the catchment area is Millwall. @J Block above posted that we might have to go there to stop another club landing on our doorstep. Millwall is the only possible such club. If we are not worried about this, then the "defensive" argument for the Peninsula is no longer valid.
Charlton Athletic Football Club will I hope be around in another 100 years time. If anyone thinks that we can get there without blood and turmoil and yes a new home then that's the dose of reality that's needed. It's not just about us. It's about those that follow. The model of football stadia built in the heart of the community is long been dead and over time will be completely of a bygone age. The opportunity to get to one of the best and most exciting locations left in London won't come around again. If the future is secured then I'm not totally opposed. But I still want to hear the argument.
I agree but a stadium is not the only thing needed for success. You could argue that while TV money far outstrips ticket income the stadium becomes less important as a source of income, relatively. Of course it's emotional and historic importance remains.
Stay and expand the Valley? Great. Move to a bigger local stadium with more income potential? Also great IMO if done right but the stadium is not the only cause of success and failure. The business plan, the level of investment and is it debt or equity, the use of the academy or not, stability in management and many other things will also be key to CAFC being successful under any owners. The Valley is important but it is not the only ingredient for success.
I fully agree. And as I pointed out an hour ago:
Among clubs who have reached the Premiership in the last five years while remaining in a ground neither bigger nor more comfortable than the Valley -and with no immediate plans to move - are Norwich, Fulham, Palace, and West Brom. Among clubs who would be there if they hadn't effed it up on the playing side but fall in to that category of stadium are QPR, Blackburn and Wolves. Other clubs who are doing better than us, but where I doubt the stadium's revenue earning capacity is greater than the Valley, are Swansea, Wigan and Watford.
I'm still waiting for a single person who thinks we need to move, in order to be 'successful', to explain away all the cases above. Especially Fulham who could also have gone to sparkly new places such as Earls Court, but have instead chosen to redevelop Craven Cottage.
The thing about those clubs you mention PA is that none have the opportunity to move one mile up the road to one of the most attractive and exciting areas in London. I believe that we can achieve success again at The Valley but the future of football is not about stadiums stuck in a residential backwater but maximising the potential and possibilities that come with the right business plan and as importantly the right location. As I posted earlier. The chance of moving to Greenwich peninsula will not come around again and if we don't take the plunge we have to live with the consequences of that inaction. Don't get me wrong. I am still very much in need of hearing the arguments but I can see very clear reasons why the peninsula is an attractive option.
OK here is another one for all the 'movers' and then I will let it rest for now
Blackburn and Bolton. About, what, eight miles apart. Almost as close as Charlton and Millwall anyway.
One has a shithole of a stadium. The other has a shiny new one
Both are doing pretty badly. Both got relegated. Bolton have debts about the size of Greece's national debt.
Kindly explain why and how the Reebok has given Bolton an advantage over Blackburn, in the same way as presumably Peninsula Towers would give us an advantage over Millwall (there must be an advantage because we are allegedly terrified they will get it)
Well?
Have I missed something, where has it been said we are all terrified of Millwall getting a ground near the O2?
It is a known fact (indeed I have documentary evidence) that Charlton have been discussing with GBC the possibilities of a Peninsula site for several years; since whenever GBC made its overall ambitions known. Charlton directors in small-group discussion with fans explained that a key reason to be interested in this was defensive - to stop some other buggers going there. This seemed a reasonable argument to fans like me who heard it at the time. However the only club who seemed seriously interested were West Ham. As I said above, they are definitely going to the Olympic. The only other club in the catchment area is Millwall. @J Block above posted that we might have to go there to stop another club landing on our doorstep. Millwall is the only possible such club. If we are not worried about this, then the "defensive" argument for the Peninsula is no longer valid.
I would not even consider Millwall as being a threat to that site, prime sites like that are not just about catchment areas, its all about opportunities. If the builders/developers/investors lost interest in buying a football club i.e. us I believe they could tempt one in from outside the area to lease or rent a much improved ground. With the transport links and room to expand Tottenham would be a consideration
OK here is another one for all the 'movers' and then I will let it rest for now
Blackburn and Bolton. About, what, eight miles apart. Almost as close as Charlton and Millwall anyway.
One has a shithole of a stadium. The other has a shiny new one
Both are doing pretty badly. Both got relegated. Bolton have debts about the size of Greece's national debt.
Kindly explain why and how the Reebok has given Bolton an advantage over Blackburn, in the same way as presumably Peninsula Towers would give us an advantage over Millwall (there must be an advantage because we are allegedly terrified they will get it)
Well?
Have I missed something, where has it been said we are all terrified of Millwall getting a ground near the O2?
It is a known fact (indeed I have documentary evidence) that Charlton have been discussing with GBC the possibilities of a Peninsula site for several years; since whenever GBC made its overall ambitions known. Charlton directors in small-group discussion with fans explained that a key reason to be interested in this was defensive - to stop some other buggers going there. This seemed a reasonable argument to fans like me who heard it at the time. However the only club who seemed seriously interested were West Ham. As I said above, they are definitely going to the Olympic. The only other club in the catchment area is Millwall. @J Block above posted that we might have to go there to stop another club landing on our doorstep. Millwall is the only possible such club. If we are not worried about this, then the "defensive" argument for the Peninsula is no longer valid.
But I think we should be worried if Millwall wanted the above. It isn't just a new stadium, it's all the commercial benefits/money that will inevitably come with it.
12 pages and counting on this thread of going round and round in circles. Let's face it, nobody is going to buy us unless it's a rich fan who's got plenty of money to burn in the way that Jack Walker did with Blackburn. There is no business case for buying a club that's £40m in debt, losing £7m per year and plying its trade in the Championship. The business case lies in property development and whether we like it or not the club is probably heading for the Peninsula to play its football .Whether this happens, only time will tell. We've had so may false dawn over the last couple of years that I'll only believe it when it's on the O/S. In any event, I've been supporting Charlton since 1965, my son's middle name is Charlton. It's highly unlikely that I'm going to stop going if we move ground. so, onwards and upwards...Que sera, sera Whatever will be, will be. The future's not ours to see. Que sera, sera. What will be, will be...
Well said VM I've got a few more years more under my belt than you but I'm with you all the way on this one.
Whatever our view about moving from the Valley, the fact is that any buyer is likely to look coldly at the financial facts, and base their decision upon getting the numbers right. This time it would have to be about the head, rather than the heart.
Whatever our view about moving from the Valley, the fact is that any buyer is likely to look coldly at the financial facts, and base their decision upon getting the numbers right. This time it would have to be about the head, rather than the heart.
Which is fine by me. I just believe we should see the numbers first
OK here is another one for all the 'movers' and then I will let it rest for now
Blackburn and Bolton. About, what, eight miles apart. Almost as close as Charlton and Millwall anyway.
One has a shithole of a stadium. The other has a shiny new one
Both are doing pretty badly. Both got relegated. Bolton have debts about the size of Greece's national debt.
Kindly explain why and how the Reebok has given Bolton an advantage over Blackburn, in the same way as presumably Peninsula Towers would give us an advantage over Millwall (there must be an advantage because we are allegedly terrified they will get it)
Well?
Have I missed something, where has it been said we are all terrified of Millwall getting a ground near the O2?
It is a known fact (indeed I have documentary evidence) that Charlton have been discussing with GBC the possibilities of a Peninsula site for several years; since whenever GBC made its overall ambitions known. Charlton directors in small-group discussion with fans explained that a key reason to be interested in this was defensive - to stop some other buggers going there. This seemed a reasonable argument to fans like me who heard it at the time. However the only club who seemed seriously interested were West Ham. As I said above, they are definitely going to the Olympic. The only other club in the catchment area is Millwall. @J Block above posted that we might have to go there to stop another club landing on our doorstep. Millwall is the only possible such club. If we are not worried about this, then the "defensive" argument for the Peninsula is no longer valid.
I would not even consider Millwall as being a threat to that site, prime sites like that are not just about catchment areas, its all about opportunities. If the builders/developers/investors lost interest in buying a football club i.e. us I believe they could tempt one in from outside the area to lease or rent a much improved ground. With the transport links and room to expand Tottenham would be a consideration
Well I think Tottenham moving south of the river is preposterous, but anyway, they, like West Ham, have made other arrangements. There really is only Millwall, and no one has ever heard a peep out of them on the matter.
I do not understand the argument that the Greenwich Peninsula has good tranport links one tube station on a line that predominatly runs through North London ie north of the Thames. There does not appear to be any mention of improved transport in the masterplan.
OK here is another one for all the 'movers' and then I will let it rest for now
Blackburn and Bolton. About, what, eight miles apart. Almost as close as Charlton and Millwall anyway.
One has a shithole of a stadium. The other has a shiny new one
Both are doing pretty badly. Both got relegated. Bolton have debts about the size of Greece's national debt.
Kindly explain why and how the Reebok has given Bolton an advantage over Blackburn, in the same way as presumably Peninsula Towers would give us an advantage over Millwall (there must be an advantage because we are allegedly terrified they will get it)
Well?
Have I missed something, where has it been said we are all terrified of Millwall getting a ground near the O2?
It is a known fact (indeed I have documentary evidence) that Charlton have been discussing with GBC the possibilities of a Peninsula site for several years; since whenever GBC made its overall ambitions known. Charlton directors in small-group discussion with fans explained that a key reason to be interested in this was defensive - to stop some other buggers going there. This seemed a reasonable argument to fans like me who heard it at the time. However the only club who seemed seriously interested were West Ham. As I said above, they are definitely going to the Olympic. The only other club in the catchment area is Millwall. @J Block above posted that we might have to go there to stop another club landing on our doorstep. Millwall is the only possible such club. If we are not worried about this, then the "defensive" argument for the Peninsula is no longer valid.
I would not even consider Millwall as being a threat to that site, prime sites like that are not just about catchment areas, its all about opportunities. If the builders/developers/investors lost interest in buying a football club i.e. us I believe they could tempt one in from outside the area to lease or rent a much improved ground. With the transport links and room to expand Tottenham would be a consideration
Well I think Tottenham moving south of the river is preposterous, but anyway, they, like West Ham, have made other arrangements. There really is only Millwall, and no one has ever heard a peep out of them on the matter.
Oh wait...there's Ebbsfleet...
palace need a new ground. or have they already made plans elsewhere?
Comments
To add to my list earlier in this thread I would like to resonate with a point made by Len Glover and others, and that is the point about Charlton Athletic should own their own ground. Hopefully that means The Valley.
In thinking about Colchester's ground, and certainly the toolbox, I find both places depressing in the extreme in terms of exciting places to be. Brightons new stadium is different, if only because of the circumstances of it's existence, and that it is a development on the soulessness of, say, Middlesboro's new place amongst some others.
However all this brings to mind the brilliant book, and it's reprints, 'The Football Grounds of Great Britain by Simon Inglis
http://www.wsc.co.uk/the-archive/906-Grounds/6949-football-grounds-of-great-britain
one link.
Inglis absolutely gets it about the special and individual nature of football grounds, despite many of the earlier stadia designed by Archibald Leach having similarities. The thing about The Valley, OUR Valley is it's distinctive and individual nature, as well as it's overall splendidness.
IF we were to ever move, the design and architectural effort would be an absolute deal breaker.
I don't want to be like the Emirates for example, certainly not the Toolbox, or Boro, or Colchester et al. I want flair and imagination, I want a return to the good old Zig Zag roof, I want the place to be nestled in the harmony of it's surroundings, I want it to look only like Charlton on TV.
My fear is that it will be a prefabricated off the shelf effort, designed by a cold hearted individual with no recognition of the journey that has gone before, and that frankly it could be anywhere, and it will become nowhere.
When Arsenal were developing Highbury before their eventual move, they had painted a backdrop of a crowd to cover the building works. Totally unnecessary, an additional expense, but the idea had at least come from someone with some sensitivity, and it was an effort to recognise what the whole football experience for Arsenal fans was all about. I want some of that before there is any thought of a move.
Millwall lost 50% at least of what it was to be Millwall when they moved from the old Den. I don't want the same thing to happen to us.
Among clubs who have reached the Premiership in the last five years while remaining in a ground neither bigger nor more comfortable than the Valley -and with no immediate plans to move - are Norwich, Fulham, Palace, and West Brom. Among clubs who would be there if they hadn't effed it up on the playing side but fall in to that category of stadium are QPR, Blackburn and Wolves. Other clubs who are doing better than us, but where I doubt the stadium's revenue earning capacity is greater than the Valley, are Swansea, Wigan and Watford.
I'm still waiting for a single person who thinks we need to move, in order to be 'successful', to explain away all the cases above. Especially Fulham who could also have gone to sparkly new places such as Earls Court, but have instead chosen to redevelop Craven Cottage.
But ... again ... this is all conjecture ... wait and see.
nail on head its not a case of jumping to conclusions its a case of reading what the forsale advert was offering
It would all just be hot air as far as I'm concerned.They've,on the whole,made a living out of secrets and bullsh** and they're not going to stop now.
Yes, there is the section 106 community and social housing needed for developments but why pay £18m for a football club and then have to knock down the Valley for housing whist building a new stadium on prime land. Why not buy some brickfield site in Charlton, Woolwich or Thamesmead and build the social housing there?
For me it doesn't yet add up.
My guess is that the Americans want to buy a sports team and the relatively cheap, London based Charlton Athletics Soccer Franchise fit the bill.
If they can get us into the EPL then even at the Valley they can pay off the debt and re-coup their investment in a few years. They may want to get in on the richest league outside of NFL/NBA/MLB and just make money or they want to promote something or other. Doesn't the guy at Arsenal (kronkie?) also own other sports teams and the Liverpool owners also have the flukey undeserving world series winners Boston Red Sox
They may well want to a new stadium as well at some point but why does it have to be on the peninsula?
Blackburn and Bolton. About, what, eight miles apart. Almost as close as Charlton and Millwall anyway.
One has a shithole of a stadium. The other has a shiny new one
Both are doing pretty badly. Both got relegated. Bolton have debts about the size of Greece's national debt.
Kindly explain why and how the Reebok has given Bolton an advantage over Blackburn, in the same way as presumably Peninsula Towers would give us an advantage over Millwall (there must be an advantage because we are allegedly terrified they will get it)
Well?
It has a bigger capacity than the Reebok (built in 1997) and three modern (90s or later) Stands and one very old Lietch stand.
On the other hand Swansea have a new ground and so do Cardiff.
As i said the Stadium is not the be all and end all either in success or failure.
Oh wait...there's Ebbsfleet...