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?
I wouldn't describe Ewood Park as a shithole?
On another note, every team cited on here as moving ground and being better off for it all needed to move, Brighton included. Charlton just do not need to. The Valley can easily be redeveloped if we ever needed a bigger stadium. Surely we're years away from that? We'd never get 40,000 unless we'd been back in the Prem for a few years. Only then should it even be considered.
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?
I wouldn't describe Ewood Park as a shithole?
On another note, every team cited on here as moving ground and being better off for it all needed to move, Brighton included. Charlton just do not need to. The Valley can easily be redeveloped if we ever needed a bigger stadium. Surely we're years away from that? We'd never get 40,000 unless we'd been back in the Prem for a few years. Only then should it even be considered.
I think the only way we could consistently get 40,000 in the ground is if we were in the prem for a number of years with champions league football and are a real challenger for the prem title.
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?
I wouldn't describe Ewood Park as a shithole?
On another note, every team cited on here as moving ground and being better off for it all needed to move, Brighton included. Charlton just do not need to. The Valley can easily be redeveloped if we ever needed a bigger stadium. Surely we're years away from that? We'd never get 40,000 unless we'd been back in the Prem for a few years. Only then should it even be considered.
This exactly.
Haven't been to Ewood for ages, but I suppose it has not been developed to a point where it is better than the Valley. And it is in the same old urban location that it was when we were both powerhouses
People ask why some foreign owner would want to own us, but surely that applies to virtually every club in the country, outside the Big 4 or 5. Why have foreign owners taken over the likes of Cardiff, Soton, Derby, Watford etc
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?
I wouldn't describe Ewood Park as a shithole?
On another note, every team cited on here as moving ground and being better off for it all needed to move, Brighton included. Charlton just do not need to. The Valley can easily be redeveloped if we ever needed a bigger stadium. Surely we're years away from that? We'd never get 40,000 unless we'd been back in the Prem for a few years. Only then should it even be considered.
This exactly.
Haven't been to Ewood for ages, but I suppose it has not been developed to a point where it is better than the Valley. And it is in the same old urban location that it was when we were both powerhouses
Clearly you have not been to Ewood Park for years. Both grounds are very similar with 3 new stands (built within the last 20 years) and one old stand (Ewood-one that runs opposite the main stand and the valley-Jimmy Seed). Hardly a shitshole in my opinion and certainly on par with the valley.
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.
Perhaps the directors felt the "defensive" argument would cause less immediate problems for them than raising a possible long-term plan to move.
Ground move speculation aside, the most exciting thing so far for me is the mooted purchase price of £18 million. That's actually a saleable amount. The thing that has worried me most has been TJ demanding daft money for a mid-level Championship club which would render us stuck with owners who can no longer afford to fund us competitively and no realistic suitors. If the price has finally been lowered to a practical number we might be on our way to better days for the future.
Ground move speculation aside, the most exciting thing so far for me is the mooted purchase price of £18 million. That's actually a saleable amount. The thing that has worried me most has been TJ demanding daft money for a mid-level Championship club which would render us stuck with owners who can no longer afford to fund us competitively and no realistic suitors. If the price has finally been lowered to a practical number we might be on our way to better days for the future.
Agree, as said above it is a significant drop in price
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.
Fulham?
Still doesn't work for me. Fulham cannot move easily because of the built up area and the expense of the land in that area. They are either stuck at The a Cottage or they relocate a few miles away next to Sainsburys and sell CC for a lot of money but lose a lot of future potential and history in the process. Charlton can move to a very very prestigious site less than one mile from The Valley in the heart of London's burgeoning playground. Big difference in my opinion.
Presumably if we were moved without the club owning the new ground (i.e no income apart from at the gate same as Coventry) & the Valley turned into housing we would be dependant on the owners pumping in money just as the current owner is. Once they have their hands on what they really want out of the deal they could I guess just run us downhill until CAFC is no more ? Just a thought.
I agree that's possible but why would a landlord drive it's own tenant into the ground so it could not pay the rent, or if it's rent free, strangle an income stream that reduces what he would otherwise need to pump in. I think the greater risk is fans being bled to increase the revenue for the new owner that minimises what he needs to pump in.
Why would a property developer buy Charlton? Not to make a profit from a football club… get real. I guess the same reason any business acquisition takes place, because the purchaser believes the assets of the business can be used to generate more revenue than is currently generated. You could sell or develop the Valley for housing which would generate profits for your connected property and construction interests. The ground ceases to be a dead asset good only to support borrowings, and is invested outside football to generate revenue that replaces debt. That is the business case for not owning your ground, except youu cease to be in control of how much of the revenue generated you keep.
If planning consent to develop the Peninsular depended on a state of the art sporting arena with a viable tenant, you would unlock permissions to develop the Peninsular by building a new Valley. Our club would be a pawn in the wider scheme of things, no good looking for answers which are logical in the narrow football context.
If this was how it worked, my interest would be to know how much was realised from the sale of the Valley and what value we added to the overall development, if it was indeed reliant on the building of a new stadium with a good tenant. That would allow me to gauge whether we were getting a fair rate of return ploughed back into the club as we must assume a good part of the revenue will be trousered by the owners. As I said, the biggest risk is being bled on ticket prices to minimise the input from the investment project to maximise the take for the owner. I see the likes of CAS Trust playing a constructive role in getting answers and transparency from the owners and figures at the outset to identify how secure the future of the club was and how exposed it was to cold hard nosed business decisions. If we cannot change things we can at least be informed. There might be things we could influence in the council's planning consent terms that gave protection. Just speculation but…..
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.
yes but "terrified" is rather overstating the case, and as you like stating your case why not stick the facts ?
Well I concede it was a rhetorical flourish, but it hardly changes my argument does it? "Worried" OK? Certainly if the club considered upping sticks from the ground it fought so hard to return to less than 20 years earlier, just to stop a competitor, they must have been 'pretty exercised". I think that when West Ham looked like a serious possibility they were "very worried", because they are still "worried" today about West Ham at the Olympic. And thats a fact.
Presumably if we were moved without the club owning the new ground (i.e no income apart from at the gate same as Coventry) & the Valley turned into housing we would be dependant on the owners pumping in money just as the current owner is. Once they have their hands on what they really want out of the deal they could I guess just run us downhill until CAFC is no more ? Just a thought.
I agree that's possible but why would a landlord drive it's own tenant into the ground so it could not pay the rent, or if it's rent free, strangle an income stream that reduces what he would otherwise need to pump in. I think the greater risk is fans being bled to increase the revenue for the new owner that minimises what he needs to pump in.
Why would a property developer buy Charlton? Not to make a profit from a football club… get real. I guess the same reason any business acquisition takes place, because the purchaser believes the assets of the business can be used to generate more revenue than is currently generated. You could sell or develop the Valley for housing which would generate profits for your connected property and construction interests. The ground ceases to be a dead asset good only to support borrowings, and is invested outside football to generate revenue that replaces debt. That is the business case for not owning your ground, except youu cease to be in control of how much of the revenue generated you keep.
If planning consent to develop the Peninsular depended on a state of the art sporting arena with a viable tenant, you would unlock permissions to develop the Peninsular by building a new Valley. Our club would be a pawn in the wider scheme of things, no good looking for answers which are logical in the narrow football context.
If this was how it worked, my interest would be to know how much was realised from the sale of the Valley and what value we added to the overall development, if it was indeed reliant on the building of a new stadium with a good tenant. That would allow me to gauge whether we were getting a fair rate of return ploughed back into the club as we must assume a good part of the revenue will be trousered by the owners. As I said, the biggest risk is being bled on ticket prices to minimise the input from the investment project to maximise the take for the owner. I see the likes of CAS Trust playing a constructive role in getting answers and transparency from the owners and figures at the outset to identify how secure the future of the club was and how exposed it was to cold hard nosed business decisions. If we cannot change things we can at least be informed. There might be things we could influence in the council's planning consent terms that gave protection. Just speculation but…..
There's an assumption in there that there is significant potential to extract more money from the existing fan base via higher prices. I'd say that is questionable. The evidence available suggests that there isn't a great deal of scope for increasing ticket revenue from existing supporters in the Championship. I accept there may be some, because season ticket prices have been suppressed by successive relegations, but it won't be material in terms of this discussion. I reckon the price increases last summer were worth £250k net, allowing for the reduced take-up.
Bear in mind the deal has to be agreed by ex-directors, some of whom have been banned from the ground by the current regime more than once by their own account. I am not saying the price is coming from them, just that the circle of knowledge is wider than it might otherwise be . . .
It was taken over by Amylum, then Tate and Lyle then Syral, but T&L had let it fall into disrepair. There were then falls in EU sugar subsidies and the decision to demolish was taken in 2008.
If it happens and it's on the OS, the new owners - whoever they may be - will tell us their aims and objectives once they're in situ. At a wild guess probably something like promotion to the Premiership, sell every seat at the Valley and keep an open mind on future ground options.
Football clubs are a tradable commodity and there's damn all we can do about it. Meanwhile, there is a game to win tomorrow...
Comments
Anyone fancy doing a summary? Like... who is interested in buying and what the % chance of it actually happening is...
BTW I don't think we'll be allowed to move to Ebbsfleet even if we wanted too, the Football League would kill it stone dead I reckon
I wasn't suggesting that. I was suggesting tongue in cheek that Ambitious Ebbsfleet might take the Pen
But seriously in what grounds would the FL stop it?
On another note, every team cited on here as moving ground and being better off for it all needed to move, Brighton included. Charlton just do not need to. The Valley can easily be redeveloped if we ever needed a bigger stadium. Surely we're years away from that? We'd never get 40,000 unless we'd been back in the Prem for a few years. Only then should it even be considered.
Haven't been to Ewood for ages, but I suppose it has not been developed to a point where it is better than the Valley. And it is in the same old urban location that it was when we were both powerhouses
Why would a property developer buy Charlton? Not to make a profit from a football club… get real. I guess the same reason any business acquisition takes place, because the purchaser believes the assets of the business can be used to generate more revenue than is currently generated. You could sell or develop the Valley for housing which would generate profits for your connected property and construction interests. The ground ceases to be a dead asset good only to support borrowings, and is invested outside football to generate revenue that replaces debt. That is the business case for not owning your ground, except youu cease to be in control of how much of the revenue generated you keep.
If planning consent to develop the Peninsular depended on a state of the art sporting arena with a viable tenant, you would unlock permissions to develop the Peninsular by building a new Valley. Our club would be a pawn in the wider scheme of things, no good looking for answers which are logical in the narrow football context.
If this was how it worked, my interest would be to know how much was realised from the sale of the Valley and what value we added to the overall development, if it was indeed reliant on the building of a new stadium with a good tenant. That would allow me to gauge whether we were getting a fair rate of return ploughed back into the club as we must assume a good part of the revenue will be trousered by the owners. As I said, the biggest risk is being bled on ticket prices to minimise the input from the investment project to maximise the take for the owner. I see the likes of CAS Trust playing a constructive role in getting answers and transparency from the owners and figures at the outset to identify how secure the future of the club was and how exposed it was to cold hard nosed business decisions. If we cannot change things we can at least be informed. There might be things we could influence in the council's planning consent terms that gave protection. Just speculation but…..
"The purchase figure is unlikely to be revealed during the process."
Friday 22 November 2013
"A fee of around £18 million has been agreed between the two parties"
Who's putting this stuff out?
Friday 22 November 2013
"A fee of around £18 million has been agreed between the two parties"
Who's putting this stuff out?
Its not very hard to guess who it is.
Need to keep my options open.
If it happens and it's on the OS, the new owners - whoever they may be - will tell us their aims and objectives once they're in situ. At a wild guess probably something like promotion to the Premiership, sell every seat at the Valley and keep an open mind on future ground options.
Football clubs are a tradable commodity and there's damn all we can do about it. Meanwhile, there is a game to win tomorrow...
no roof..