[cite] LenGlover:[/cite]"Other possible stadium options" what does that mean? Not ANOTHER move from The Valley I hope.
Henry over to you!
For me, the pieces of the jigsaw are starting to fit into place. I reckon there's someone waiting in the background ready to invest big bucks in our football club and it wouldn't suprise me if we end up at the Dome in a state of the art indoor arena with a super casino bolted on to the side. Why would we have de-listed from the AIM if there wasn't to be any private investment? The 'cost' excuse given by the board is a red herring, IMO. The Valley will be bulldozed and turned into a housing estate.
I think the Dome and the land around it are now accounted for - in fact, I don't think there's any land on the Greenwich peninsula that hasn't got plans set out for it already. Unless those rumours of an Anschutz takeover resurface, of course.
I reckon it's a reference to the Olympic stadium in Stratford, something Varney said at City Addicks a couple of years ago. Which seems a bit odd to me, because West Ham would be first in the queue to get that, and Spurs have been after it as well...
I imagine if the Board are considering anything, it's because they would be remiss not to. In the way that they said they had to at least consider a move to the Dome before. As the Board are fans, imho, it would have to be a great, great opportunity (for the Club) for them to up sticks from The Valley. In fact, it may be remiss of them not to consider a move, but there's really no point: the "hardcore" supporters wouldn't have it.
Anyway, I can't for the life of me see the attraction of these new grounds built on wastelands away from their local communities, like the Riverside and Eastlands. They may bring state of the art facilities, room for parking and the like, but as a sentimental young fool I think they lose a lot too. I know it's hardly a long trek, but the intimacy of The Valley, nestled in amongst the old houses and flats and set in the old chalk pit is something no one should undervalue, as is the character that comes from re-developing around the existing site and older parts of the ground.
I wouldn't want to be at the Dome and I sure as hell wouldn't want to see Charlton in the Olympic Park.
I think some of you are reading more into this than there is. Forget AIM and forget Stratford for the reasons Rothko states.
The problem is that Greenwich Council won't give the full planning permission and without that the board don't want to spend a lot of money and then not be able to finish of the ground. So realistically a move has to be considered.
What I'd like to hear from you lot is what do you think? "no, never" or "maybe is the conditions are right" and if so what are those conditions? Location, facilities, size, transports, etc, etc.
ben@charltonfansdirector.co.uk
AFKA, if you are reading this then I'm sorted. owe you £5 for the sponsorship.
All this talk of a ground move and even expansion of the Valley assumes that there will be a demand for seats and that we would be able to sell out such larger venues. I'm not convinced that we would be able to - I think we are already somewhere near saturation point, certainly as far as genuine Charlton fans are concerned. Look at how long it took us to sell the tickets for Saturday's game for example. I'm sure we could ship people in from darkest Kent to make up the numbers but then our support will be diluted even further. So my view is that I'm not bothered if we don't expand the Valley, and so there's certainly no need to move elsewhere.
No to a move, gradual investment alongside investment in playing side.
Problem as I see it is travel, getting 27k away after the game is tough enough, but 13k more, can't see how they can do it without a serious transport plan, and changes to the surrounding area in terms of bus only lanes etc. Therefore I can see planning permission being an issue.
The board are right to be cautious, concerning relegation and planning permission, there has clearly been a change of tack however, and why the position is different from a year ago I am not sure - price of steel sounds like an excuse..
I get the feeling the club are hoping AEG and Quintain will sort the transport problem out for the club, by improving links between North Greenwich and Charlton station.
The transport plan for the expansion is poor, and needs thinking through, we've got one of the biggest underground stations in Europe within a mile and a half of the ground, and no effective link to get people there, Charlton station would benefit on match days from improved use of North Greenwich.
The club could run its own shuttle service on match days and there is priority bus route there, problem is where the buses should queue up wooliwich rd you have to fight your way across to get to the NG bus route don't ya? unless you stacked them up charlton church lane, and I can't see that being practical.
They can sell the ground to a property developer who can build much needed housing on the land in an already residential area. Greenwich council, the london assembly & the thames gateway development have to build thousands of homes in the next few years.
If they do that they may get a favourable ear when it comes to building a new stadium with better facilities.
The new stadium could have the best facilities in the world but I still would not want us to move. We have recent experience of being a club by name only and I do not want to experience footy away from the Valley again. I accept that some people may view this as overly sentimental in the hard business world of football, but to me Charlton is the Valley. Not some "plastic" shell in North Greenwich. Anyway must move on and see what Ketman is up to.........
I would like to put a slightly lateral spin on this!
Assuming that there may be a doubt as to whether Greenwich council will give the go-ahead for the entire ground to be developed for a number of reasons - some stated above - and also assuming that having a high profile football club in the borough who are often lauded for their community work is presumably an asset to the borough - is it not entirely sensible to `investigate' other possiblities that might cause the club to move out of the borough and ensure the council are aware of these considerations.
Would Greenwich Council want to risk the possiblity of losing a Premiership club from their environs and all that entails to another borough/county because of their rejection of the expansion or would they bend over backwards to ensure that there was no need for the club to consider a move? Just a thought!
I would accept a move away from the Valley but only if it was within a radius of about 3 miles and certainly not outside the Borough's of Greenwich. I might consider somewhere like Brands Hatch or Bexley borough coz they're on my doorstep. Anything else...Forget it.
No Room in Bexley to build the ground, especially not by the river, as the area is zoned for housing.
Only place we could move is North Greenwich, there is the potential for land to be made available to us, but it would be expensive, and you suffer from new groundistus.
i'm gobsmacked we're even discussing it. some people have got very short memories, i certainly could not watch us play anywhere else. the marches, the campaigning, the election; all forgotten for the sake of some more premiership fans from kent. that'll be me finished.
The Valley is Charlton's ground end of. All moves away from there have been disastrous. Why can't we learn from history?
Moving to Ebbsfleet, if that is what they want to do, although easier for me personally to reach, would make us no better than Franchise FC also known as Milton Keynes Dons.
If the PC zealots on Greenwich Council try and make life difficult by inserting bus lanes and yellow lines all around The Valley then The Valley Party must be resurrected to fight them.
[cite] LenGlover:[/cite]
If the PC zealots on Greenwich Council try and make life difficult by inserting bus lanes and yellow lines all around The Valley then The Valley Party must be resurrected to fight them.
Can't see that happening while the council's happy to allow retail parks to be built in Charlton, adding yet more traffic on matchdays as well as other days.
The Valley's also in a better location for public transport than just about any other alternative, and it's not in too bad a position for cars either - park and ride from North Greenwich (like Southampton's scheme) is the flaming obvious solution to a lot of this, but the council's too stupid and the club thinks it's in Maidstone.
[cite] LenGlover:[/cite]
If the PC zealots on Greenwich Council try and make life difficult by inserting bus lanes and yellow lines all around The Valley then The Valley Party must be resurrected to fight them.
I do have a problem with PC Zealots, the club should invest in improving the transport in the area, AEG are paying through the nose at the moment for the transport improvements for the dome, £20m on North Greenwich, £7m on a Riverbus service, and further to be spent on bus links. Nothing wrong with putting bus lanes into the area round the Valley, good for the club in a way.
The club could have, and should have coughed a little up for better links between North Greenwich and the Valley, but strangly think Charlton station is good enough.
There will be the Greenwich waterfront transport scheme, which should speed up movement between ground and Nrth Greenwich. This will also connect with DLR at Woolwich.
[cite] pickwick:[/cite]There will be the Greenwich waterfront transport scheme, which should speed up movement between ground and Nrth Greenwich. This will also connect with DLR at Woolwich.
Not by much, though - bearing in mind all the arseing around in the various retail parks these buses will have to do. The first phase is only going to run between Woolwich and Thamesmead, anyway. Can I take this anorak off now, please? :-)
Sorry am I reading it wrong, I thought phase 1 included running from the dome to Abbey Wood, just has to do Bugsby's Way - I've also put my anorak away for the rest of the evening....
Comments
Henry over to you!
For me, the pieces of the jigsaw are starting to fit into place. I reckon there's someone waiting in the background ready to invest big bucks in our football club and it wouldn't suprise me if we end up at the Dome in a state of the art indoor arena with a super casino bolted on to the side. Why would we have de-listed from the AIM if there wasn't to be any private investment? The 'cost' excuse given by the board is a red herring, IMO. The Valley will be bulldozed and turned into a housing estate.
I reckon it's a reference to the Olympic stadium in Stratford, something Varney said at City Addicks a couple of years ago. Which seems a bit odd to me, because West Ham would be first in the queue to get that, and Spurs have been after it as well...
What is possible, is that there could be some land in the Olympic Park which could be converted into a Football greound.
As for the Peninsula, the lands accounted for, for exactly what is open to offers, especially the sites of the temporary arenas for 2012
Anyway, I can't for the life of me see the attraction of these new grounds built on wastelands away from their local communities, like the Riverside and Eastlands. They may bring state of the art facilities, room for parking and the like, but as a sentimental young fool I think they lose a lot too. I know it's hardly a long trek, but the intimacy of The Valley, nestled in amongst the old houses and flats and set in the old chalk pit is something no one should undervalue, as is the character that comes from re-developing around the existing site and older parts of the ground.
I wouldn't want to be at the Dome and I sure as hell wouldn't want to see Charlton in the Olympic Park.
It is not possible.
I feel an article coming on....
The problem is that Greenwich Council won't give the full planning permission and without that the board don't want to spend a lot of money and then not be able to finish of the ground. So realistically a move has to be considered.
What I'd like to hear from you lot is what do you think? "no, never" or "maybe is the conditions are right" and if so what are those conditions? Location, facilities, size, transports, etc, etc.
ben@charltonfansdirector.co.uk
AFKA, if you are reading this then I'm sorted. owe you £5 for the sponsorship.
Problem as I see it is travel, getting 27k away after the game is tough enough, but 13k more, can't see how they can do it without a serious transport plan, and changes to the surrounding area in terms of bus only lanes etc. Therefore I can see planning permission being an issue.
The board are right to be cautious, concerning relegation and planning permission, there has clearly been a change of tack however, and why the position is different from a year ago I am not sure - price of steel sounds like an excuse..
The transport plan for the expansion is poor, and needs thinking through, we've got one of the biggest underground stations in Europe within a mile and a half of the ground, and no effective link to get people there, Charlton station would benefit on match days from improved use of North Greenwich.
They can sell the ground to a property developer who can build much needed housing on the land in an already residential area. Greenwich council, the london assembly & the thames gateway development have to build thousands of homes in the next few years.
If they do that they may get a favourable ear when it comes to building a new stadium with better facilities.
We'll see
We have recent experience of being a club by name only and I do not want to experience footy away from the Valley again.
I accept that some people may view this as overly sentimental in the hard business world of football, but to me Charlton is the Valley. Not some "plastic" shell in North Greenwich.
Anyway must move on and see what Ketman is up to.........
Assuming that there may be a doubt as to whether Greenwich council will give the go-ahead for the entire ground to be developed for a number of reasons - some stated above - and also assuming that having a high profile football club in the borough who are often lauded for their community work is presumably an asset to the borough - is it not entirely sensible to `investigate' other possiblities that might cause the club to move out of the borough and ensure the council are aware of these considerations.
Would Greenwich Council want to risk the possiblity of losing a Premiership club from their environs and all that entails to another borough/county because of their rejection of the expansion or would they bend over backwards to ensure that there was no need for the club to consider a move? Just a thought!
i'm staggered anyone would consider anything. Truely staggered.
Only place we could move is North Greenwich, there is the potential for land to be made available to us, but it would be expensive, and you suffer from new groundistus.
Moving to Ebbsfleet, if that is what they want to do, although easier for me personally to reach, would make us no better than Franchise FC also known as Milton Keynes Dons.
If the PC zealots on Greenwich Council try and make life difficult by inserting bus lanes and yellow lines all around The Valley then The Valley Party must be resurrected to fight them.
I hope, as Sporaddick suggested, it's a game of bluff, not intended for the fans, but for GC.
Plus, we're raising money for Valley Flags, not Dome Flags, or Olympic Park Flags!
Feck The Dome, who would want to be associated with that?
Can't see that happening while the council's happy to allow retail parks to be built in Charlton, adding yet more traffic on matchdays as well as other days.
The Valley's also in a better location for public transport than just about any other alternative, and it's not in too bad a position for cars either - park and ride from North Greenwich (like Southampton's scheme) is the flaming obvious solution to a lot of this, but the council's too stupid and the club thinks it's in Maidstone.
I'm going to write an article tomorrow, which will be forwarded to Peter Varney.
I do have a problem with PC Zealots, the club should invest in improving the transport in the area, AEG are paying through the nose at the moment for the transport improvements for the dome, £20m on North Greenwich, £7m on a Riverbus service, and further to be spent on bus links. Nothing wrong with putting bus lanes into the area round the Valley, good for the club in a way.
The club could have, and should have coughed a little up for better links between North Greenwich and the Valley, but strangly think Charlton station is good enough.
We won't leave the Valley, end of.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/downloads/pdf/greenwich-transit/GWT06-04-Detailed-new.pdf
Not by much, though - bearing in mind all the arseing around in the various retail parks these buses will have to do. The first phase is only going to run between Woolwich and Thamesmead, anyway. Can I take this anorak off now, please? :-)
Er, i think you misread it. I think he meant is why would we want to move, when the the fans battled to get back to the Valley'.
Well that's how i read it !