I love the Valley like anyone else, and have been going down there for 40 years.
But a move to Greenwich peninsula (Morden wharf) with a modern 30/35k stadium like Brighton's with bars and restaurants etc access from North Greenwich underground and by the river may be a positive thing.
5
Comments
No, until it is proved to (& accepted by) the majority of the support as being - at the very least - probably the correct thing to do.
In any other situation(as long as it benefits CAFC), its a good thing too, with no doubts either.
To me, its a no-brainer. You cant be sentimental in Football, you have to keep moving forwards- because all other clubs are trying to.
Its a huge opportunity - and its right on our bleedin doorstep !
Or stay at The Valley, stay Lidl Ol Charlton, stay watching Aldershot and Accrington at home with the other dwindling 4 thousand, selling all youth that are any good to Palace and prob Millwall.
The only reason I could see myself ever accepting a move to a new stadium as being a good thing is if it was to a stadium of 40 or 50k capacity that would boost us to a similar level as the likes of Spurs, which would only happen if we have another period of being an established top tier club.
The Brittania holds 27,000 and Stoke are a well established premier league club.
The only situation I'd be happy about moving in is if we were aiming for consistent top 10 finishes and planning applications for 40k at The Valley had been turned down.
1) They have an old ground, which can't be modernised (e.g. Brentford)
2) Their ground is too small (or large). Arsenal is the main example of this, with Spurs and Chelsea following (albeit on the same site)
3) Their ground is no good for commercial revenue - this is more of a problem for Everton at Goodison than the 40k capacity
I can't see the Valley falling into any of their categories. 27k is a perfectly acceptable capacity for us, and if necessary it can be slightly expanded and additional exec boxes etc added.
Plumstead station to Charlton is around 10 minutes is it? Trains in the week run every 10 minutes.
So let's just cancel them in home matchdays.
I'd rather be at the Valley if at all possible, just sitting in the pilot looking out over the peninsula and it's a pretty soulless place. Although the park looks nice in the sun.
That said - there are plans for something like 15,000 new homes there in the next 10 years so it might help get fans through the door too - or just cause absolute traffic chaos.
I support Charlton - wherever that may be.
El Presidente and I had a good discussion on this a couple weeks back. All-in-all I'm against moving, mostly because I just don't see the upside as being all that huge. I think you could expand The Valley by another 5k seats, which would put us in the 32k realm. Qualms with SE rail et al aside, we could do with better transport links, which would certainly help fill the ground.
I would say that with teams like Bournemouth, QPR, Stoke etc. in the Prem, and Leeds, Forest, Villa, etc. in the second tier, there is no guarantee that a 27k or even a 32k or 35k seater stadium will make us Premier League mainstays. The money now is in partnerships and overseas sponsors/investors/TV money. All of this is why I see it as a bit of a moot point.
A new stadium isn't really going to be the thing to get us to the Premier League, and it's not all that likely it'd keep us there (keeping in mind looking five years out is a fool's errand the way things in football are).
The best way for us to get to, and stay in, the top flight
is years of good infrastructure work, shrewd investment in youth players, good, consistent scouting, employing some of the up-and-coming best behind the scenes and in key footballing roles such as coaches, and a long, patient movement toward breaking even and an overall fiscally responsible way of running the cluba rich man buying us and investing loads in deficit spending to get us up to the Premier League.This isn't knocking Valley Express, but I doubt any of the big PL London teams run cheap coaches to bring fans in, or need to.
The Reebok (Macron) stadium is a good example of a new ground that lacks any sort of atmosphere. The emirates is another that lacks atmosphere but is obviously a fantastic structure that has done wonders for Arsenals commercial avenues.
What I fear the most is that by moving we'd end up with a ground with no atmosphere.
Or we may end up with a ground like Hull City's which I have to say I thought was brilliant and showed me that it could be done correctly.
Stoke City
2013-14 Turnover 14th - Wage Bill 16th - Profit £3m
2014-15 Turnover 16th - Wage Bill 16th - Profit £5m
Net 'friendly debt' £33m - reducing. Ground & Training Ground - owned outright - no mortgages.
The big loss in 2012-13 was to pay for the new Cat 1 training ground.
Easy journey however you go.
That 40k stadium sketch from a while back is all we'd ever need, realistically. I don't see why we'd want to move as fans - sure, club could make some more money on the Peninsula possibly in that situation.