I hope this deal happens and I hope that in a few years we have the luxury to be able to chew the cudd over whether to stay at The Valley or move to a new state of the Art stadium.
'State of the Art'. My concern exactly.
Why?????
Give me one good reason a modern stadium very near where we are is such a bad idea? I would snatch anyone's hands off for a Stadium like Brighton, for instance?!
As I have written earlier on this thread (and referenced Brighton too), I can give you several 'good reasons'. No not the AMEX, but Colchester, The Toolbox, The Riverside, The Emirates, St Marys, and others. When you say 'state of the art' that is exactly it, the 'art'. Some kind of functional prefabricated soulless anonymous stadium would, for me, be awful. If on the other hand a true 'artist' of a football architect were involved, and could persuade us, then it may be another matter. I went to the AMEX last season, and was impressed by the proximity of Falmer, the seats, and the Vegetarian pie. I knew it was Brighton and Hove Albion because everything was blue, maybe if everything had been red I would have thought I was in Southampton.
And the Valley is different at every turn is it?!
Sorry there is no argument buried in your statement, just some vague dislike for modern stadiums. A matter of taste rather than logic.
Oh I would say that my dislike is more precise than vague.
I have contributed above on this thread, even cited Simon Inglis in order to inform the discussion. You may not be able to see an 'argument' 'buried' in my statement because I am not arguing against a stadium that isn't proposed, I will bide my time on that.
Yes indeed it is about taste, logic doesn't come into it. Being a Charlton Athletic supporter suits my taste, if it were logic then maybe I should choose Manchester United as so many others do as they're, errrm, logically the team to support. liking Charlton, liking the Valley is a matter of taste, very good taste actually.
Architectural artistic design is about the harmony of taste and functionality, and in our case the harmony has to take into account the sport, and our history. Any ground we play at has to be beautiful and tasteful for me, even if that isn't logical. It isn't logical that Arsenal painted that backdrop, it isn't logical that Kent replaced the Lime tree at Canterbury.
If you think my position doesn't hold water in some way because of the lack of logic, or numbers I disagree with you. To end with your first point, well actually The Valley is different at every turn, it is unmistakeably the Valley and all the better for that.
I hope this deal happens and I hope that in a few years we have the luxury to be able to chew the cudd over whether to stay at The Valley or move to a new state of the Art stadium.
'State of the Art'. My concern exactly.
Why?????
Give me one good reason a modern stadium very near where we are is such a bad idea? I would snatch anyone's hands off for a Stadium like Brighton, for instance?!
As I have written earlier on this thread (and referenced Brighton too), I can give you several 'good reasons'. No not the AMEX, but Colchester, The Toolbox, The Riverside, The Emirates, St Marys, and others. When you say 'state of the art' that is exactly it, the 'art'. Some kind of functional prefabricated soulless anonymous stadium would, for me, be awful. If on the other hand a true 'artist' of a football architect were involved, and could persuade us, then it may be another matter. I went to the AMEX last season, and was impressed by the proximity of Falmer, the seats, and the Vegetarian pie. I knew it was Brighton and Hove Albion because everything was blue, maybe if everything had been red I would have thought I was in Southampton.
And the Valley is different at every turn is it?!
Sorry there is no argument buried in your statement, just some vague dislike for modern stadiums. A matter of taste rather than logic.
Oh I would say that my dislike is more precise than vague.
I have contributed above on this thread, even cited Simon Inglis in order to inform the discussion. You may not be able to see an 'argument' 'buried' in my statement because I am not arguing against a stadium that isn't proposed, I will bide my time on that.
Yes indeed it is about taste, logic doesn't come into it. Being a Charlton Athletic supporter suits my taste, if it were logic then maybe I should choose Manchester United as so many others do as they're, errrm, logically the team to support. liking Charlton, liking the Valley is a matter of taste, very good taste actually.
Architectural artistic design is about the harmony of taste and functionality, and in our case the harmony has to take into account the sport, and our history. Any ground we play at has to be beautiful and tasteful for me, even if that isn't logical. It isn't logical that Arsenal painted that backdrop, it isn't logical that Kent replaced the Lime tree at Canterbury.
If you think my position doesn't hold water in some way because of the lack of logic, or numbers I disagree with you. To end with your first point, well actually The Valley is different at every turn, it is unmistakeably the Valley and all the better for that.
I hope this deal happens and I hope that in a few years we have the luxury to be able to chew the cudd over whether to stay at The Valley or move to a new state of the Art stadium.
'State of the Art'. My concern exactly.
Why?????
Give me one good reason a modern stadium very near where we are is such a bad idea? I would snatch anyone's hands off for a Stadium like Brighton, for instance?!
As I have written earlier on this thread (and referenced Brighton too), I can give you several 'good reasons'. No not the AMEX, but Colchester, The Toolbox, The Riverside, The Emirates, St Marys, and others. When you say 'state of the art' that is exactly it, the 'art'. Some kind of functional prefabricated soulless anonymous stadium would, for me, be awful. If on the other hand a true 'artist' of a football architect were involved, and could persuade us, then it may be another matter. I went to the AMEX last season, and was impressed by the proximity of Falmer, the seats, and the Vegetarian pie. I knew it was Brighton and Hove Albion because everything was blue, maybe if everything had been red I would have thought I was in Southampton.
And the Valley is different at every turn is it?!
Sorry there is no argument buried in your statement, just some vague dislike for modern stadiums. A matter of taste rather than logic.
Oh I would say that my dislike is more precise than vague.
I have contributed above on this thread, even cited Simon Inglis in order to inform the discussion. You may not be able to see an 'argument' 'buried' in my statement because I am not arguing against a stadium that isn't proposed, I will bide my time on that.
Yes indeed it is about taste, logic doesn't come into it. Being a Charlton Athletic supporter suits my taste, if it were logic then maybe I should choose Manchester United as so many others do as they're, errrm, logically the team to support. liking Charlton, liking the Valley is a matter of taste, very good taste actually.
Architectural artistic design is about the harmony of taste and functionality, and in our case the harmony has to take into account the sport, and our history. Any ground we play at has to be beautiful and tasteful for me, even if that isn't logical. It isn't logical that Arsenal painted that backdrop, it isn't logical that Kent replaced the Lime tree at Canterbury.
If you think my position doesn't hold water in some way because of the lack of logic, or numbers I disagree with you. To end with your first point, well actually The Valley is different at every turn, it is unmistakeably the Valley and all the better for that.
I hope this deal happens and I hope that in a few years we have the luxury to be able to chew the cudd over whether to stay at The Valley or move to a new state of the Art stadium.
'State of the Art'. My concern exactly.
Why?????
Give me one good reason a modern stadium very near where we are is such a bad idea? I would snatch anyone's hands off for a Stadium like Brighton, for instance?!
Modern stadiums are often identikit looking bowls with identical looking stands and no individual features.
To some that's great because they like the uniformity and everything shiny and new, but to others that's souless, bland and lacking in any character.
The football, fans and drama are what add atmosphere - Valley is very similar all over.
Never noticed any lack of atmosphere at Wembly!
wembly has a shite atmosphere.
Not when I've been.
same, went there when it was filled with 15,000 non league fans for the fa vase final and the place was rocking. not even a quarter full.
The Valley is fit for FAPL football. It is not the Valley's fault that it no longer hosts it. Could you explain to me what the Valley does not have that Carrow road, the Hawthorns or Craven Cottage, does? How would you like to see the Valley improved to your satisfaction?
The Valley is fit for FAPL football. It is not the Valley's fault that it no longer hosts it. Could you explain to me what the Valley does not have that Carrow road, the Hawthorns or Craven Cottage, does? How would you like to see the Valley improved to your satisfaction?
Actually I like the The Valley - if there were a choice I would opt for expanding what is there. However if a new stadium was on offer in the peninsula there could be many advantages in pursuing it . Personally I don't have a problem with more modern stadium designs and I do not thnk that a move would be a betrayal of Charltons heritage.
The reality is this would be a way down the line anyway and there are lots more bridges to be crossed, eg survival, building a squad, pushing for promotion, staying up if we were promoted etc etc.
I hope this deal happens and I hope that in a few years we have the luxury to be able to chew the cudd over whether to stay at The Valley or move to a new state of the Art stadium.
'State of the Art'. My concern exactly.
Why?????
Give me one good reason a modern stadium very near where we are is such a bad idea? I would snatch anyone's hands off for a Stadium like Brighton, for instance?!
As I have written earlier on this thread (and referenced Brighton too), I can give you several 'good reasons'. No not the AMEX, but Colchester, The Toolbox, The Riverside, The Emirates, St Marys, and others. When you say 'state of the art' that is exactly it, the 'art'. Some kind of functional prefabricated soulless anonymous stadium would, for me, be awful. If on the other hand a true 'artist' of a football architect were involved, and could persuade us, then it may be another matter. I went to the AMEX last season, and was impressed by the proximity of Falmer, the seats, and the Vegetarian pie. I knew it was Brighton and Hove Albion because everything was blue, maybe if everything had been red I would have thought I was in Southampton.
And the Valley is different at every turn is it?!
Sorry there is no argument buried in your statement, just some vague dislike for modern stadiums. A matter of taste rather than logic.
Oh I would say that my dislike is more precise than vague.
I have contributed above on this thread, even cited Simon Inglis in order to inform the discussion. You may not be able to see an 'argument' 'buried' in my statement because I am not arguing against a stadium that isn't proposed, I will bide my time on that.
Yes indeed it is about taste, logic doesn't come into it. Being a Charlton Athletic supporter suits my taste, if it were logic then maybe I should choose Manchester United as so many others do as they're, errrm, logically the team to support. liking Charlton, liking the Valley is a matter of taste, very good taste actually.
Architectural artistic design is about the harmony of taste and functionality, and in our case the harmony has to take into account the sport, and our history. Any ground we play at has to be beautiful and tasteful for me, even if that isn't logical. It isn't logical that Arsenal painted that backdrop, it isn't logical that Kent replaced the Lime tree at Canterbury.
If you think my position doesn't hold water in some way because of the lack of logic, or numbers I disagree with you. To end with your first point, well actually The Valley is different at every turn, it is unmistakeably the Valley and all the better for that.
I hope this deal happens and I hope that in a few years we have the luxury to be able to chew the cudd over whether to stay at The Valley or move to a new state of the Art stadium.
'State of the Art'. My concern exactly.
Why?????
Give me one good reason a modern stadium very near where we are is such a bad idea? I would snatch anyone's hands off for a Stadium like Brighton, for instance?!
As I have written earlier on this thread (and referenced Brighton too), I can give you several 'good reasons'. No not the AMEX, but Colchester, The Toolbox, The Riverside, The Emirates, St Marys, and others. When you say 'state of the art' that is exactly it, the 'art'. Some kind of functional prefabricated soulless anonymous stadium would, for me, be awful. If on the other hand a true 'artist' of a football architect were involved, and could persuade us, then it may be another matter. I went to the AMEX last season, and was impressed by the proximity of Falmer, the seats, and the Vegetarian pie. I knew it was Brighton and Hove Albion because everything was blue, maybe if everything had been red I would have thought I was in Southampton.
And the Valley is different at every turn is it?!
Sorry there is no argument buried in your statement, just some vague dislike for modern stadiums. A matter of taste rather than logic.
Oh I would say that my dislike is more precise than vague.
I have contributed above on this thread, even cited Simon Inglis in order to inform the discussion. You may not be able to see an 'argument' 'buried' in my statement because I am not arguing against a stadium that isn't proposed, I will bide my time on that.
Yes indeed it is about taste, logic doesn't come into it. Being a Charlton Athletic supporter suits my taste, if it were logic then maybe I should choose Manchester United as so many others do as they're, errrm, logically the team to support. liking Charlton, liking the Valley is a matter of taste, very good taste actually.
Architectural artistic design is about the harmony of taste and functionality, and in our case the harmony has to take into account the sport, and our history. Any ground we play at has to be beautiful and tasteful for me, even if that isn't logical. It isn't logical that Arsenal painted that backdrop, it isn't logical that Kent replaced the Lime tree at Canterbury.
If you think my position doesn't hold water in some way because of the lack of logic, or numbers I disagree with you. To end with your first point, well actually The Valley is different at every turn, it is unmistakeably the Valley and all the better for that.
I hope this deal happens and I hope that in a few years we have the luxury to be able to chew the cudd over whether to stay at The Valley or move to a new state of the Art stadium.
'State of the Art'. My concern exactly.
Why?????
Give me one good reason a modern stadium very near where we are is such a bad idea? I would snatch anyone's hands off for a Stadium like Brighton, for instance?!
As I have written earlier on this thread (and referenced Brighton too), I can give you several 'good reasons'. No not the AMEX, but Colchester, The Toolbox, The Riverside, The Emirates, St Marys, and others. When you say 'state of the art' that is exactly it, the 'art'. Some kind of functional prefabricated soulless anonymous stadium would, for me, be awful. If on the other hand a true 'artist' of a football architect were involved, and could persuade us, then it may be another matter. I went to the AMEX last season, and was impressed by the proximity of Falmer, the seats, and the Vegetarian pie. I knew it was Brighton and Hove Albion because everything was blue, maybe if everything had been red I would have thought I was in Southampton.
And the Valley is different at every turn is it?!
Sorry there is no argument buried in your statement, just some vague dislike for modern stadiums. A matter of taste rather than logic.
Oh I would say that my dislike is more precise than vague.
I have contributed above on this thread, even cited Simon Inglis in order to inform the discussion. You may not be able to see an 'argument' 'buried' in my statement because I am not arguing against a stadium that isn't proposed, I will bide my time on that.
Yes indeed it is about taste, logic doesn't come into it. Being a Charlton Athletic supporter suits my taste, if it were logic then maybe I should choose Manchester United as so many others do as they're, errrm, logically the team to support. liking Charlton, liking the Valley is a matter of taste, very good taste actually.
Architectural artistic design is about the harmony of taste and functionality, and in our case the harmony has to take into account the sport, and our history. Any ground we play at has to be beautiful and tasteful for me, even if that isn't logical. It isn't logical that Arsenal painted that backdrop, it isn't logical that Kent replaced the Lime tree at Canterbury.
If you think my position doesn't hold water in some way because of the lack of logic, or numbers I disagree with you. To end with your first point, well actually The Valley is different at every turn, it is unmistakeably the Valley and all the better for that.
The Valley is fit for FAPL football. It is not the Valley's fault that it no longer hosts it. Could you explain to me what the Valley does not have that Carrow road, the Hawthorns or Craven Cottage, does? How would you like to see the Valley improved to your satisfaction?
It's not just that though PA. It's about the really big picture not just the football. For us to move back into the big time and perhaps become a biggish fish rather than the second tier club we have always been then the peninsula and all the razzmatazz is the best option to achieve that. It won't suit some but and I'm not sure myself but I want Charlton to be strong and thriving in 100 years from now. I am prepared to bet you £5 that CAFC are not playing their football in Floyd Road in 2113 ;0)
The Valley is fit for FAPL football. It is not the Valley's fault that it no longer hosts it. Could you explain to me what the Valley does not have that Carrow road, the Hawthorns or Craven Cottage, does? How would you like to see the Valley improved to your satisfaction?
Actually I like the The Valley - if there were a choice I would opt for expanding what is there. However if a new stadium was on offer in the peninsula there could be many advantages in pursuing it . Personally I don't have a problem with more modern stadium designs and I do not thnk that a move would be a betrayal of Charltons heritage.
The reality is this would be a way down the line anyway and there are lots more bridges to be crossed, eg survival, building a squad, pushing for promotion, staying up if we were promoted etc etc.
Fair enough. There is scope to expand the Valley, particularly with what it most needs; more executive boxes and entertainment venues. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise without a very clear detailed argument to back it up.
NSS
For decent lager, you'll just have to come out here or to Germany.
The Valley is fit for FAPL football. It is not the Valley's fault that it no longer hosts it. Could you explain to me what the Valley does not have that Carrow road, the Hawthorns or Craven Cottage, does? How would you like to see the Valley improved to your satisfaction?
It's not just that though PA. It's about the really big picture not just the football. For us to move back into the big time and perhaps become a biggish fish rather than the second tier club we have always been then the peninsula and all the razzmatazz is the best option to achieve that. It won't suit some but and I'm not sure myself but I want Charlton to be strong and thriving in 100 years from now. I am prepared to bet you £5 that CAFC are not playing their football in Floyd Road in 2113 ;0)
I hope this deal happens and I hope that in a few years we have the luxury to be able to chew the cudd over whether to stay at The Valley or move to a new state of the Art stadium.
'State of the Art'. My concern exactly.
Why?????
Give me one good reason a modern stadium very near where we are is such a bad idea? I would snatch anyone's hands off for a Stadium like Brighton, for instance?!
As I have written earlier on this thread (and referenced Brighton too), I can give you several 'good reasons'. No not the AMEX, but Colchester, The Toolbox, The Riverside, The Emirates, St Marys, and others. When you say 'state of the art' that is exactly it, the 'art'. Some kind of functional prefabricated soulless anonymous stadium would, for me, be awful. If on the other hand a true 'artist' of a football architect were involved, and could persuade us, then it may be another matter. I went to the AMEX last season, and was impressed by the proximity of Falmer, the seats, and the Vegetarian pie. I knew it was Brighton and Hove Albion because everything was blue, maybe if everything had been red I would have thought I was in Southampton.
And the Valley is different at every turn is it?!
Sorry there is no argument buried in your statement, just some vague dislike for modern stadiums. A matter of taste rather than logic.
Not just a question of taste. In the first instance, Ur opinion of your likes or dislikes of the AMEX is indeed a subjective one.
however i can state with objectivity that there is minimal comparison between a move from an unfit for purpose Withdean Stadium and a move from the Valley to the pennisula
I hope this deal happens and I hope that in a few years we have the luxury to be able to chew the cudd over whether to stay at The Valley or move to a new state of the Art stadium.
'State of the Art'. My concern exactly.
Why?????
Give me one good reason a modern stadium very near where we are is such a bad idea? I would snatch anyone's hands off for a Stadium like Brighton, for instance?!
As I have written earlier on this thread (and referenced Brighton too), I can give you several 'good reasons'. No not the AMEX, but Colchester, The Toolbox, The Riverside, The Emirates, St Marys, and others. When you say 'state of the art' that is exactly it, the 'art'. Some kind of functional prefabricated soulless anonymous stadium would, for me, be awful. If on the other hand a true 'artist' of a football architect were involved, and could persuade us, then it may be another matter. I went to the AMEX last season, and was impressed by the proximity of Falmer, the seats, and the Vegetarian pie. I knew it was Brighton and Hove Albion because everything was blue, maybe if everything had been red I would have thought I was in Southampton.
And the Valley is different at every turn is it?!
Sorry there is no argument buried in your statement, just some vague dislike for modern stadiums. A matter of taste rather than logic.
Oh I would say that my dislike is more precise than vague.
I have contributed above on this thread, even cited Simon Inglis in order to inform the discussion. You may not be able to see an 'argument' 'buried' in my statement because I am not arguing against a stadium that isn't proposed, I will bide my time on that.
Yes indeed it is about taste, logic doesn't come into it. Being a Charlton Athletic supporter suits my taste, if it were logic then maybe I should choose Manchester United as so many others do as they're, errrm, logically the team to support. liking Charlton, liking the Valley is a matter of taste, very good taste actually.
Architectural artistic design is about the harmony of taste and functionality, and in our case the harmony has to take into account the sport, and our history. Any ground we play at has to be beautiful and tasteful for me, even if that isn't logical. It isn't logical that Arsenal painted that backdrop, it isn't logical that Kent replaced the Lime tree at Canterbury.
If you think my position doesn't hold water in some way because of the lack of logic, or numbers I disagree with you. To end with your first point, well actually The Valley is different at every turn, it is unmistakeably the Valley and all the better for that.
Pompous vacuous waffle
Would you care to explain why?
I have been detailed in my posts and you have dismissed them without engaging. Perhaps you can't sustain a discussion initiated by you when you used the phrase 'state of the art', and you resort to snide generalisation instead.
I hope this deal happens and I hope that in a few years we have the luxury to be able to chew the cudd over whether to stay at The Valley or move to a new state of the
'State of the Art'. My concern exactly.
Why?????
Give me one good reason a modern stadium very near where we are is such a bad idea? I would snatch anyone's hands off for a Stadium like Brighton, for instance?!
As I have written earlier on this thread (and referenced Brighton too), I can give you several 'good reasons'. No not the AMEX, but Colchester, The Toolbox, The Riverside, The Emirates, St Marys, and others. When you say 'state of the art' that is exactly it, the 'art'. Some kind of functional prefabricated soulless anonymous stadium would, for me, be awful. If on the other hand a true 'artist' of a football architect were involved, and could persuade us, then it may be another matter. I went to the AMEX last season, and was impressed by the proximity of Falmer, the seats, and the Vegetarian pie. I knew it was Brighton and Hove Albion because everything was blue, maybe if everything had been red I would have thought I was in Southampton.
And the Valley is different at every turn is it?!
Sorry there is no argument buried in your statement, just some vague dislike for modern stadiums. A matter of taste rather than logic.
Oh I would say that my dislike is more precise than vague.
I have contributed above on this thread, even cited Simon Inglis in order to inform the discussion. You may not be able to see an 'argument' 'buried' in my statement because I am not arguing against a stadium that isn't proposed, I will bide my time on that.
Yes indeed it is about taste, logic doesn't come into it. Being a Charlton Athletic supporter suits my taste, if it were logic then maybe I should choose Manchester United as so many others do as they're, errrm, logically the team to support. liking Charlton, liking the Valley is a matter of taste, very good taste actually.
Architectural artistic design is about the harmony of taste and functionality, and in our case the harmony has to take into account the sport, and our history. Any ground we play at has to be beautiful and tasteful for me, even if that isn't logical. It isn't logical that Arsenal painted that backdrop, it isn't logical that Kent replaced the Lime tree at Canterbury.
If you think my position doesn't hold water in some way because of the lack of logic, or numbers I disagree with you. To end with your first point, well actually The Valley is different at every turn, it is unmistakeably the Valley and all the better for that.
Pompous vacuous waffle
Would you care to explain why?
I have been detailed in my posts and you have dismissed them without engaging. Perhaps you can't sustain a discussion initiated by you when you used the phrase 'state of the art', and you resort to snide generalisation instead.
For what its worth, i found your post well written and absolutely cogent.
Architectural artistic design is about the harmony of taste and functionality, and in our case the harmony has to take into account the sport, and our history. Any ground we play at has to be beautiful and tasteful for me, even if that isn't logical. It isn't logical that Arsenal painted that backdrop, it isn't logical that Kent replaced the Lime tree at Canterbury.
If you think my position doesn't hold water in some way because of the lack of logic, or numbers I disagree with you. To end with your first point, well actually The Valley is different at every turn, it is unmistakeably the Valley and all the better for that.
The Lime Tree at Canterbury was dead or dying, not the best analogy ? But on this point, I have had said to me by non CAFC visitors to the valley that they find it a rather soulless modern stadium.
echoing my point earlier, if there were any kind of talk of the council building a stadium a mile away, it would be naive and foolish to not be involved in discussions from very early on. I dont want to move from the valley. Not at all, but we need to be involved in discussions, much like we were with the millenium dome site. If anything to seek assurances/written legislation that the only football club allowed to use the stadium would be CAFC
echoing my point earlier, if there were any kind of talk of the council building a stadium a mile away, it would be naive and foolish to not be involved in discussions from very early on. I dont want to move from the valley. Not at all, but we need to be involved in discussions, much like we were with the millenium dome site. If anything to seek assurances/written legislation that the only football club allowed to use the stadium would be CAFC
I don't think there is any other site being proposed other than the Pen. I'd certainly prefer a site in Charlton to the Pen but I don't think it is on offer because the Council has its own plans for the whole area north of Woolwich Road, which AFKA posted and reposted, to general apathy.
The Valley is fit for FAPL football. It is not the Valley's fault that it no longer hosts it. Could you explain to me what the Valley does not have that Carrow road, the Hawthorns or Craven Cottage, does? How would you like to see the Valley improved to your satisfaction?
Actually I like the The Valley - if there were a choice I would opt for expanding what is there. However if a new stadium was on offer in the peninsula there could be many advantages in pursuing it . Personally I don't have a problem with more modern stadium designs and I do not thnk that a move would be a betrayal of Charltons heritage.
The reality is this would be a way down the line anyway and there are lots more bridges to be crossed, eg survival, building a squad, pushing for promotion, staying up if we were promoted etc etc.
Fair enough. There is scope to expand the Valley, particularly with what it most needs; more executive boxes and entertainment venues. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise without a very clear detailed argument to back it up.
NSS
For decent lager, you'll just have to come out here or to Germany.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but I would like to know what the scope is to expand the Valley? Is a 27,000 plus capacity sufficient and if not would the Council give permission for further expansion at all and if they were to give permission, would they tag on requirements to invest in the infrastructure? You mention executive boxes what would be needed to develop these at the Valley? What are the commercial advantages of staying at the Valley vis a vis any proposed or not proposed move?
I'll admit, I am not tethered to the Valley nor am I jumping up and down in anticipation of a new ground. I went to Selhurst, I went to Upton Park .. I'll go where my team play, I just hope that its where is nest for the long term future of the club.
At this point, we neither know if the proposed takeover is actually going to happen or the intention of any new owners.
We are lucky in that we are close enough to a successful commercial/entertainment area to make us an attractive proposition, if a move to the peninsular is actually the intended plan of any potential investors.
We would all love to be bought by a multi billionaire Charlton supporter, who would keep us at The Valley and spend vast amounts of money keeping us in the Premiership but this isn't going to happen, IF moving to the Peninsular moves us forward as a club, then personally I'd be OK with it.
I love the Valley but I love the old Valley more than the new Valley, it's where I started watching football in 1970 but my feelings are sentimental.
At this point, we neither know if the proposed takeover is actually going to happen or the intention of any new owners.
We are lucky in that we are close enough to a successful commercial/entertainment area to make us an attractive proposition, if a move to the peninsular is actually the intended plan of any potential investors.
We would all love to be bought by a multi billionaire Charlton supporter, who would keep us at The Valley and spend vast amounts of money keeping us in the Premiership but this isn't going to happen, IF moving to the Peninsular moves us forward as a club, then personally I'd be OK with it.
I love the Valley but I love the old Valley more than the new Valley, it's where I started watching football in 1970 but my feelings are sentimental.
As far as I can see a move to the peninsula won't of itself deliver sufficient financial benefit to justify the asking price, which is effectively the debt run up by the present owners, and taking on the other debt.
It may, however, stack up financially if we become an established PL team or have the resources to become one, because potentially there is more commercial revenue than you can capture at The Valley if you are able to push on to the next level.
Obviously I am not in favour of leaving The Valley, but I think the only scenario in which it would make financial sense is one of unprecedented success on the pitch, which is a big positive.
thought previous asking price was £40M all in. Now it is £18M plus £4M bank debt plus £7M contingent liabilities = £29M. Still a significant reduction but still seems expensive for a club that looses something like £5Mpa and is stuck near the bottom of the table with owners unwilling to put more in....why would possible new owners not just wait another yr or so until the current mob are even more desperate to sell up.
I hope this deal happens and I hope that in a few years we have the luxury to be able to chew the cudd over whether to stay at The Valley or move to a new state of the Art stadium.
'State of the Art'. My concern exactly.
Why?????
Give me one good reason a modern stadium very near where we are is such a bad idea? I would snatch anyone's hands off for a Stadium like Brighton, for instance?!
As I have written earlier on this thread (and referenced Brighton too), I can give you several 'good reasons'. No not the AMEX, but Colchester, The Toolbox, The Riverside, The Emirates, St Marys, and others. When you say 'state of the art' that is exactly it, the 'art'. Some kind of functional prefabricated soulless anonymous stadium would, for me, be awful. If on the other hand a true 'artist' of a football architect were involved, and could persuade us, then it may be another matter. I went to the AMEX last season, and was impressed by the proximity of Falmer, the seats, and the Vegetarian pie. I knew it was Brighton and Hove Albion because everything was blue, maybe if everything had been red I would have thought I was in Southampton.
And the Valley is different at every turn is it?!
Sorry there is no argument buried in your statement, just some vague dislike for modern stadiums. A matter of taste rather than logic.
Oh I would say that my dislike is more precise than vague.
I have contributed above on this thread, even cited Simon Inglis in order to inform the discussion. You may not be able to see an 'argument' 'buried' in my statement because I am not arguing against a stadium that isn't proposed, I will bide my time on that.
Yes indeed it is about taste, logic doesn't come into it. Being a Charlton Athletic supporter suits my taste, if it were logic then maybe I should choose Manchester United as so many others do as they're, errrm, logically the team to support. liking Charlton, liking the Valley is a matter of taste, very good taste actually.
Architectural artistic design is about the harmony of taste and functionality, and in our case the harmony has to take into account the sport, and our history. Any ground we play at has to be beautiful and tasteful for me, even if that isn't logical. It isn't logical that Arsenal painted that backdrop, it isn't logical that Kent replaced the Lime tree at Canterbury.
If you think my position doesn't hold water in some way because of the lack of logic, or numbers I disagree with you. To end with your first point, well actually The Valley is different at every turn, it is unmistakeably the Valley and all the better for that.
Pompous vacuous waffle
Would you care to explain why?
I have been detailed in my posts and you have dismissed them without engaging. Perhaps you can't sustain a discussion initiated by you when you used the phrase 'state of the art', and you resort to snide generalisation instead.
State of the art means the most advanced available.
Your initial post was patronising since you implied that only people who liked uniformity or were taken in by things shiny would like a new stadium. You set the snide tone, not me!
All you have said is that you don't like modern stadiums because you find them soulless. That is a matter of opinion.
I like modern stadiums and think atmosphere and soul are to do with the crowd and club , crucially the football being played.
Not agreeing with your opinion does not constitute failure to engage.
Comments
I have contributed above on this thread, even cited Simon Inglis in order to inform the discussion. You may not be able to see an 'argument' 'buried' in my statement because I am not arguing against a stadium that isn't proposed, I will bide my time on that.
Yes indeed it is about taste, logic doesn't come into it. Being a Charlton Athletic supporter suits my taste, if it were logic then maybe I should choose Manchester United as so many others do as they're, errrm, logically the team to support. liking Charlton, liking the Valley is a matter of taste, very good taste actually.
Architectural artistic design is about the harmony of taste and functionality, and in our case the harmony has to take into account the sport, and our history. Any ground we play at has to be beautiful and tasteful for me, even if that isn't logical. It isn't logical that Arsenal painted that backdrop, it isn't logical that Kent replaced the Lime tree at Canterbury.
If you think my position doesn't hold water in some way because of the lack of logic, or numbers I disagree with you. To end with your first point, well actually The Valley is different at every turn, it is unmistakeably the Valley and all the better for that.
Could you explain something to me?
The Valley is fit for FAPL football. It is not the Valley's fault that it no longer hosts it. Could you explain to me what the Valley does not have that Carrow road, the Hawthorns or Craven Cottage, does? How would you like to see the Valley improved to your satisfaction?
The reality is this would be a way down the line anyway and there are lots more bridges to be crossed, eg survival, building a squad, pushing for promotion, staying up if we were promoted etc etc.
NSS
For decent lager, you'll just have to come out here or to Germany.
however i can state with objectivity that there is minimal comparison between a move from an unfit for purpose Withdean Stadium and a move from the Valley to the pennisula
one was necessary. The other is clearly not.
there is no comparison
I have been detailed in my posts and you have dismissed them without engaging.
Perhaps you can't sustain a discussion initiated by you when you used the phrase 'state of the art', and you resort to snide generalisation instead.
Architectural artistic design is about the harmony of taste and functionality, and in our case the harmony has to take into account the sport, and our history. Any ground we play at has to be beautiful and tasteful for me, even if that isn't logical. It isn't logical that Arsenal painted that backdrop, it isn't logical that Kent replaced the Lime tree at Canterbury.
If you think my position doesn't hold water in some way because of the lack of logic, or numbers I disagree with you. To end with your first point, well actually The Valley is different at every turn, it is unmistakeably the Valley and all the better for that.
The Lime Tree at Canterbury was dead or dying, not the best analogy ? But on this point, I have had said to me by non CAFC visitors to the valley that they find it a rather soulless modern stadium.
Hope so because I have had it confirmed this morning that there is a late problem with the one that news broke of this week.
Read more: http://intothevalley.proboards.com/thread/14261/slp-on-takeover?page=3#ixzz2lUDiOqTj
I'll admit, I am not tethered to the Valley nor am I jumping up and down in anticipation of a new ground. I went to Selhurst, I went to Upton Park .. I'll go where my team play, I just hope that its where is nest for the long term future of the club.
We are lucky in that we are close enough to a successful commercial/entertainment area to make us an attractive proposition, if a move to the peninsular is actually the intended plan of any potential investors.
We would all love to be bought by a multi billionaire Charlton supporter, who would keep us at The Valley and spend vast amounts of money keeping us in the Premiership but this isn't going to happen, IF moving to the Peninsular moves us forward as a club, then personally I'd be OK with it.
I love the Valley but I love the old Valley more than the new Valley, it's where I started watching football in 1970 but my feelings are sentimental.
It may, however, stack up financially if we become an established PL team or have the resources to become one, because potentially there is more commercial revenue than you can capture at The Valley if you are able to push on to the next level.
Obviously I am not in favour of leaving The Valley, but I think the only scenario in which it would make financial sense is one of unprecedented success on the pitch, which is a big positive.
Your initial post was patronising since you implied that only people who liked uniformity or were taken in by things shiny would like a new stadium. You set the snide tone, not me!
All you have said is that you don't like modern stadiums because you find them soulless. That is a matter of opinion.
I like modern stadiums and think atmosphere and soul are to do with the crowd and club , crucially the football being played.
Not agreeing with your opinion does not constitute failure to engage.