tl;dr - I think primarily we don't need questions for staying, it should be assumed that we will stay unless a compelling argument to move comes up. For moving, we need to understand the compelling reason, the new opportunities, and the new risks and exposures we'll likely be taking on.
But if the most important reason for moving was ...... if we spend £xM on the move we stand a good chance of persuading RBG to let us do something that will make us £10xM profit ..... are they likely to be able to say that ?
By my estimation, of the 44 clubs currently in the top two divisions, 17 have built a new stadium in the past two decades. This does not include the likes of Blackpool and Bournemouth that have completely rebuilt their stadiums on the same site.
Of those 17, it is fair to say that the significant majority were forced to move because their previous stadiums were decrepit or otherwise no longer fit for purpose.
Indeed I can only identify Arsenal or Man City (and possibly Leicester) who left stadiums which might be described as adequate in the short-to-medium term. Arsenal however clearly had excess demand for tickets which couldn't be satisfied at Highbury despite its charms.
Thus if Charlton did move from The Valley then our situation would be somewhat unusual (given The Valley is clearly adequate for our current needs) but I do nonetheless think our London location generally and the unique attributes of the Peninsula specifically warrant us being a potential 'special case'.
It would also notably catapult us (in terms of resources and potential) above Fulham, QPR and Palace, the three London clubs we probably most readily benchmark ourselves against in terms of fanbase, history etc., each of whom would be stuck in completely inadequate facilities.
This keeps going around and around. I'm not sure if anyone else has thought of this, but regardless of who buys it, there are 6 questions that we as supporters should demand to know the answers to...
1. Who owns the Club?
2. What would they cook on Come Dine with Me?
3. What is their highest Candy Crush level?
4. What are their plans for Christmas?
5. What is their favourite Police Academy?
6. If their 'PA's' husband comes home from work earlier than expected, what is the exit strategy?
By my estimation, of the 44 clubs currently in the top two divisions, 17 have built a new stadium in the past two decades. This does not include the likes of Blackpool and Bournemouth that have completely rebuilt their stadiums on the same site.
Of those 17, it is fair to say that the significant majority were forced to move because their previous stadiums were decrepit or otherwise no longer fit for purpose.
Indeed I can only identify Arsenal or Man City (and possibly Leicester) who left stadiums which might be described as adequate in the short-to-medium term. Arsenal however clearly had excess demand for tickets which couldn't be satisfied at Highbury despite its charms.
Thus if Charlton did move from The Valley then our situation would be somewhat unusual (given The Valley is clearly adequate for our current needs) but I do nonetheless think our London location generally and the unique attributes of the Peninsula specifically warrant us being a potential 'special case'.
It would also notably catapult us (in terms of resources and potential) above Fulham, QPR and Palace, the three London clubs we probably most readily benchmark ourselves against in terms of fanbase, history etc., each of whom would be stuck in completely inadequate facilities.
That's a very helpful quantification of what several of us have been saying re other clubs, so thanks for that.
However your final sentence contains a key case. Fulham. They are determined to rebuild their current home. Somebody above wrote that they may have run into problems planning wise, so lets see. But it is an important benchmark to help understand the options better.
tl;dr - I think primarily we don't need questions for staying, it should be assumed that we will stay unless a compelling argument to move comes up. For moving, we need to understand the compelling reason, the new opportunities, and the new risks and exposures we'll likely be taking on.
But if the most important reason for moving was ...... if we spend £xM on the move we stand a good chance of persuading RBG to let us do something that will make us £10xM profit ..... are they likely to be able to say that ?
This keeps going around and around. I'm not sure if anyone else has thought of this, but regardless of who buys it, there are 6 questions that we as supporters should demand to know the answers to...
1. Who owns the Club?
2. What would they cook on Come Dine with Me?
3. What is their highest Candy Crush level?
4. What are their plans for Christmas?
5. What is their favourite Police Academy?
6. If their 'PA's' husband comes home from work earlier than expected, what is the exit strategy?
i'm far more concerned about how tall they are....
By my estimation, of the 44 clubs currently in the top two divisions, 17 have built a new stadium in the past two decades. This does not include the likes of Blackpool and Bournemouth that have completely rebuilt their stadiums on the same site.
Of those 17, it is fair to say that the significant majority were forced to move because their previous stadiums were decrepit or otherwise no longer fit for purpose.
Indeed I can only identify Arsenal or Man City (and possibly Leicester) who left stadiums which might be described as adequate in the short-to-medium term. Arsenal however clearly had excess demand for tickets which couldn't be satisfied at Highbury despite its charms.
Thus if Charlton did move from The Valley then our situation would be somewhat unusual (given The Valley is clearly adequate for our current needs) but I do nonetheless think our London location generally and the unique attributes of the Peninsula specifically warrant us being a potential 'special case'.
It would also notably catapult us (in terms of resources and potential) above Fulham, QPR and Palace, the three London clubs we probably most readily benchmark ourselves against in terms of fanbase, history etc., each of whom would be stuck in completely inadequate facilities.
That's a very helpful quantification of what several of us have been saying re other clubs, so thanks for that.
However your final sentence contains a key case. Fulham. They are determined to rebuild their current home. Somebody above wrote that they may have run into problems planning wise, so lets see. But it is an important benchmark to help understand the options better.
Fulham is an interesting case. On the one hand they are in an outstanding location in the heart of affluent South West London (and a few tube stops from the West End), but on the other hand it is that very affluence which makes it near-impossible for them to find a suitable new stadium location in the area (too many NIMBYs).
Rikofold, if that is you with a lack of coherence I'd love to read you when you are coherent.
Very well put.
I agree that the default position should be we stay until there is a clear advantage for all the stakeholders in moving. And not just now but long term.
This keeps going around and around. I'm not sure if anyone else has thought of this, but regardless of who buys it, there are 6 questions that we as supporters should demand to know the answers to...
1. Who owns the Club?
2. What would they cook on Come Dine with Me?
3. What is their highest Candy Crush level?
4. What are their plans for Christmas?
5. What is their favourite Police Academy?
6. If their 'PA's' husband comes home from work earlier than expected, what is the exit strategy?
Spot on Afka , we need to get the basics right first.
This keeps going around and around. I'm not sure if anyone else has thought of this, but regardless of who buys it, there are 6 questions that we as supporters should demand to know the answers to...
1. Who owns the Club?
2. What would they cook on Come Dine with Me?
3. What is their highest Candy Crush level?
4. What are their plans for Christmas?
5. What is their favourite Police Academy?
6. If their 'PA's' husband comes home from work earlier than expected, what is the exit strategy?
i'm far more concerned about how tall they are....
This keeps going around and around. I'm not sure if anyone else has thought of this, but regardless of who buys it, there are 6 questions that we as supporters should demand to know the answers to...
This keeps going around and around. I'm not sure if anyone else has thought of this, but regardless of who buys it, there are 6 questions that we as supporters should demand to know the answers to...
1. Who owns the Club?
2. What would they cook on Come Dine with Me?
3. What is their highest Candy Crush level?
4. What are their plans for Christmas?
5. What is their favourite Police Academy?
6. If their 'PA's' husband comes home from work earlier than expected, what is the exit strategy?
Brilliant post! Particularly as any takeover has not been confirmed and the posts regarding moving or not are becoming farcical. Do I really expect the board to consult me or other fans regarding details of any takeover (if it happens) or plans for the future? I think not. Imho AFKA Bartram really, and rightly so, sums up how absurd the posts on this subject have become. Incidentally I am not being critical of this post because I think he or she, like myself may be getting a little bit fed up .
Back in the Glikstein days I used to stand in the covered end on rainy days and wonder if we would ever have a seated Valley. It was a bit like a dream. Then at Palace and Upton Park we all just wanted to be back at the Valley no matter what the ground looked like and to be sure it was a bit of a mess when we finally returned. My Grandad supported us when we went briefly to Catford and I am sure I will support Charlton if ever we were transplanted to the peninsula but why? My dream has come true. The Valley is now a lovely ground, unpretentious. We will never be an Arsenal and it seems silly to think we would ever reach the Champions League. Kevin Ayers used to say, 'Know who you are and be there.' Wise words we should take heed of.
I met Michael Glikstein when we in the prem, his biggest regret (apart from feeling he was hated by CAFC fans) was not having the money to spend to take us on to the next level, if this is the chance, we should take it IMHIO. I cant see a sustainable business case that says staying at the Valley is the thing to do, other than the tugs on the heart strings I am all for it, if it happens, though I know it is far from certain.
By my estimation, of the 44 clubs currently in the top two divisions, 17 have built a new stadium in the past two decades. This does not include the likes of Blackpool and Bournemouth that have completely rebuilt their stadiums on the same site.
Of those 17, it is fair to say that the significant majority were forced to move because their previous stadiums were decrepit or otherwise no longer fit for purpose.
Indeed I can only identify Arsenal or Man City (and possibly Leicester) who left stadiums which might be described as adequate in the short-to-medium term. Arsenal however clearly had excess demand for tickets which couldn't be satisfied at Highbury despite its charms.
Thus if Charlton did move from The Valley then our situation would be somewhat unusual (given The Valley is clearly adequate for our current needs) but I do nonetheless think our London location generally and the unique attributes of the Peninsula specifically warrant us being a potential 'special case'.
It would also notably catapult us (in terms of resources and potential) above Fulham, QPR and Palace, the three London clubs we probably most readily benchmark ourselves against in terms of fanbase, history etc., each of whom would be stuck in completely inadequate facilities.
West Ham is another comparable situation, a ground rebuilt on 3 sides and perfectly adequate for their current fanbase. If England had won the World Cup, then other clubs with fairly decent and expandable grounds might have built new grounds as well, e.g. Nottingham Foreast and (to a lesser extent) Bristol City. Both Liverpool and Everton have interminably talked about new grounds also...
The plans for the development of a stadium built on the peninsula doesn't make much sense to me. Surely, luxury appartments overlooking the Thames and the dome would bring in a lot more to a developer than homes built on the Valley site.
Valley site is more desirable when it comes to social housing though.
Build a shiny New stadium on the peninsula with luxury apartments, shops and entertainment facilities, keep social housing away from the area
Of 30,000 fans attending a football match in the afternoon, a fair amount would be attracted to the idea of a nice meal afterwards before attending a concert of some description in the O2. An expensive day out, which is why the business plan would be geared towards attracting corporate clients, and perhaps cashed up travelers from a recently docked cruise ship.
I can see it now: "day 9, your ship docks in London, historic, cosmopolitan centre of world class theatre music and sport. Collect your complementary ticket from the bursar for a trip ashore to see an exciting match between top English soccer teams Charlton Athletc and Huddersfield Town".
Also from a trust perspective I find these threads interesting for a whole host of reasons, among those are they look at the viability of the business, and the Valley in particular vs other stuff.
Although of course they are largely rumour and speculation around a takeover, I think these sorts of discussions around CAFC business are very useful for the present day and future preservation of our club, as well as for exposing different points of view.
By my estimation, of the 44 clubs currently in the top two divisions, 17 have built a new stadium in the past two decades. This does not include the likes of Blackpool and Bournemouth that have completely rebuilt their stadiums on the same site.
Of those 17, it is fair to say that the significant majority were forced to move because their previous stadiums were decrepit or otherwise no longer fit for purpose.
Indeed I can only identify Arsenal or Man City (and possibly Leicester) who left stadiums which might be described as adequate in the short-to-medium term. Arsenal however clearly had excess demand for tickets which couldn't be satisfied at Highbury despite its charms.
Thus if Charlton did move from The Valley then our situation would be somewhat unusual (given The Valley is clearly adequate for our current needs) but I do nonetheless think our London location generally and the unique attributes of the Peninsula specifically warrant us being a potential 'special case'.
It would also notably catapult us (in terms of resources and potential) above Fulham, QPR and Palace, the three London clubs we probably most readily benchmark ourselves against in terms of fanbase, history etc., each of whom would be stuck in completely inadequate facilities.
West Ham is another comparable situation, a ground rebuilt on 3 sides and perfectly adequate for their current fanbase. .
I think it is reasonable to assert that if it hadn't been for the Olympics, West Ham would be perfectly happy to stay put. But when those sharp operators realised what a great deal they could extract at the expense of the taxpayer, they just couldn't resist. Whether the fans enjoy it, will be another matter. But the porn barons are on record as saying that what matters to them is not the overall capacity but the massive corporate entertainment capacity. And the best thing -for them- is that you and I are paying for it.
I have been looking at ITV forum this evening and saw this so as this person has asked someone I'm reposting-:
Just heard through a friend that one of the companies that are involved somehow in the never ending takeover are Hutchison Whampoa a Hong Kong based company in the fortune 500. They recently brought a majority stake in a company called Quintain Estaes who owns the lease on the O2 & surrounding areas. Apparently their looking to invest a lot into Greenwich Peninsular area.
PS If your also on Charlton Life please repost there, i tried signing up but haven't been approved yet & feel like all CAFC fans would like the info. cheers.
Sorry dont know how to post the link thingy's properly
pressure of location no expansion available? who's to say a new stadium would be able to expand over 40k that is the potential of the valley site
cost of expansion vs favourable incentives elsewhere?
potential of location, transport, footprint, and other factor?
etc
There has been another relocation somewhat closer to home. Woolwich Arsenal pulled out of Plumstead in 1913 because of consistently inadequate attendances. Interestingly enough, 100 years later and after another move, their name and identity remain significantly unchanged. (The same can be said for Millwall, who moved even earlier - they retain the club name from their days in E14 and they have not forgotten their time "on the Island".)
Over the years it has been a struggle for CAFC to survive. Even the stadium's big expansion in the 30s was a bit of a cheat. The Glikstens were not slow to capitalise on the team's success by increasing The Valley's capacity but this was done only in the most minimalist way. There was no investment in stands or decent facilities which could have brought more revenue - instead, the East and South terraces were simply marched up the natural contours of the chalk pit to form the huge amphitheatre that is so special in our memories, and even then they did it on the cheap by partly using the (captive) labour of the players.
In the 30s the team's success gained the interest of a wider sporting public and vast crowds were drawn in from the local area and out into Kent. The marketing environment nowadays is very different and there is a new focus, as it happens right on our doorstep.
A move from The Valley will only materialise (if it does) for the soundest of reasons and with the greatest of regrets. New owners subscribing to such a course of action would not be passive investors and would undoubtedly have an aggressive development strategy. Also, if staying put conflicted with RBG's plans the borough would be unlikely to co-operate with any plan B the club came up with.
If the development of the peninsula puts a few pennies back into the public purse that will not be a bad thing. The catastrophic expense of the Dome will be a story that we will no doubt have to wait 30 years to read about (although of course it will eventually be eclipsed by the truly scandalous handling of the Olympics.)
Let's hope for some positive news of the takeover very soon, to end all the speculation.
Comments
Of those 17, it is fair to say that the significant majority were forced to move because their previous stadiums were decrepit or otherwise no longer fit for purpose.
Indeed I can only identify Arsenal or Man City (and possibly Leicester) who left stadiums which might be described as adequate in the short-to-medium term. Arsenal however clearly had excess demand for tickets which couldn't be satisfied at Highbury despite its charms.
Thus if Charlton did move from The Valley then our situation would be somewhat unusual (given The Valley is clearly adequate for our current needs) but I do nonetheless think our London location generally and the unique attributes of the Peninsula specifically warrant us being a potential 'special case'.
It would also notably catapult us (in terms of resources and potential) above Fulham, QPR and Palace, the three London clubs we probably most readily benchmark ourselves against in terms of fanbase, history etc., each of whom would be stuck in completely inadequate facilities.
1. Who owns the Club?
2. What would they cook on Come Dine with Me?
3. What is their highest Candy Crush level?
4. What are their plans for Christmas?
5. What is their favourite Police Academy?
6. If their 'PA's' husband comes home from work earlier than expected, what is the exit strategy?
However your final sentence contains a key case. Fulham. They are determined to rebuild their current home. Somebody above wrote that they may have run into problems planning wise, so lets see. But it is an important benchmark to help understand the options better.
Excellent post from Rikofold.
Spot on Afka , we need to get the basics right first.
What if they are muslims or jewish?
Imho AFKA Bartram really, and rightly so, sums up how absurd the posts on this subject have become. Incidentally I am not being critical of this post because I think he or she, like myself may be getting a little bit fed up .
Fella needs to get his priorities straight!
If England had won the World Cup, then other clubs with fairly decent and expandable grounds might have built new grounds as well, e.g. Nottingham Foreast and (to a lesser extent) Bristol City. Both Liverpool and Everton have interminably talked about new grounds also...
pressure of location no expansion available? who's to say a new stadium would be able to expand over 40k that is the potential of the valley site
cost of expansion vs favourable incentives elsewhere?
potential of location, transport, footprint, and other factor?
etc
Although of course they are largely rumour and speculation around a takeover, I think these sorts of discussions around CAFC business are very useful for the present day and future preservation of our club, as well as for exposing different points of view.
Was this a pucka rumour, a strategic leak or a red herring?
Just heard through a friend that one of the companies that are involved somehow in the never ending takeover are Hutchison Whampoa a Hong Kong based company in the fortune 500. They recently brought a majority stake in a company called Quintain Estaes who owns the lease on the O2 & surrounding areas. Apparently their looking to invest a lot into Greenwich Peninsular area.
www.vcpost.com/tags/quintain-estates
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutchison_Whampoa#Company
tools.morningstar.co.uk/uk/stockreport/default.aspx?tab=3&vw=story&SecurityToken=0P00007OSN]3]0]E0GBR$$ALL&Id=0P00007OSN&ClientFund=0&CurrencyId=GBP&story=83900038703242
www.newlondonarchitecture.org/project.php?id=1023&name=greenwich_peninsula
PS If your also on Charlton Life please repost there, i tried signing up but haven't been approved yet & feel like all CAFC fans would like the info. cheers.
Sorry dont know how to post the link thingy's properly
Over the years it has been a struggle for CAFC to survive. Even the stadium's big expansion in the 30s was a bit of a cheat. The Glikstens were not slow to capitalise on the team's success by increasing The Valley's capacity but this was done only in the most minimalist way. There was no investment in stands or decent facilities which could have brought more revenue - instead, the East and South terraces were simply marched up the natural contours of the chalk pit to form the huge amphitheatre that is so special in our memories, and even then they did it on the cheap by partly using the (captive) labour of the players.
In the 30s the team's success gained the interest of a wider sporting public and vast crowds were drawn in from the local area and out into Kent. The marketing environment nowadays is very different and there is a new focus, as it happens right on our doorstep.
A move from The Valley will only materialise (if it does) for the soundest of reasons and with the greatest of regrets. New owners subscribing to such a course of action would not be passive investors and would undoubtedly have an aggressive development strategy. Also, if staying put conflicted with RBG's plans the borough would be unlikely to co-operate with any plan B the club came up with.
If the development of the peninsula puts a few pennies back into the public purse that will not be a bad thing. The catastrophic expense of the Dome will be a story that we will no doubt have to wait 30 years to read about (although of course it will eventually be eclipsed by the truly scandalous handling of the Olympics.)
Let's hope for some positive news of the takeover very soon, to end all the speculation.