I have no idea of the answer to this question, I am sure someone will be able to answer it.
The common assumption, which I am sure is correct, is that there is next to chance of getting planning permission to build residential/commercial developments on the site of the Valley and/or Sparrows Lane.
How would the council etc veiw a change of use if there was no occupation of either site? A football ground with no football team is hardly a asset of community value.
All other things being equal the Valley would be seen as a good opportunity for more social and commercial housing in Greenwich, which would be part of their overall plan.
But, and it is a big but ,politically it would be very inadvisable. Other local residents may not want more housing (although some would no doubt prefer this to 25+ home games a season.
Local businesses wouldn't be happy, the borough would lose an employer and a company that brings a lot of "customers" into the borough.
Any planning application would be fought and the shadow of the Valley Party would loom large.
The football club and Trust as seen as important benefits to the area.
This is the big flaw in RD's thinking. He wants all the benefits of Charlton being a proper football club without taking responsibility of running the club as one. It just doesn't work. The EFL must surely see that allowing a (?fit and proper?) "amateur" to participate weakens the whole structure of the League and diminishes the endeavours of all the diligent owners like Andy Holt who are really really trying hard to make it all work. RD steadily allowing his own club to degrade is disrespectful and perilous for its peers as well as itself.
Of course it's absurd for RD to demand that EFL buy the club. But surely the EFL does have one powerful sanction - they could threaten to expel CAFC. Under what circumstances could RD - or any other delinquent owner for that matter - be kicked out, besides the inability to fulfil their fixtures? If the answer is none, perhaps it's time EFL adopted some further powers to dispossess or at least discipline these rogues.
This is what confuses me about people saying the EFL need to take action. We have a problem, RD is damaging our club with his ownership. As far as I can see the EFL has 3 options, other than trying to reason with him to sell.
1) Points deduction. Hurts us more than it hurts him.
2) Financial sanctions, he will just add it to the running costs. Again hurts us more than him.
3) Remove the golden share. Again he would still hold the real estate, we would have no club.
I can't see, other than dialogue, how they can put any pressure on him, or other owners, to sell. If they could I am also not sure if they should. Every year they would get dozens of supporters groups demanding the same every year.
I don't see what the EFL can legally do. Roland isn't breaking any rules, the players are being paid, we don't owe money to other clubs etc
Yes Roland has been a terrible owner for us, but from the EFL's point of view the club is still functioning normally and is in the playoff positions in L1. The nature of football is that there are good owners and bad owners, and not all clubs can be successful.
I have no idea of the answer to this question, I am sure someone will be able to answer it.
The common assumption, which I am sure is correct, is that there is next to chance of getting planning permission to build residential/commercial developments on the site of the Valley and/or Sparrows Lane.
How would the council etc veiw a change of use if there was no occupation of either site? A football ground with no football team is hardly a asset of community value.
All other things being equal the Valley would be seen as a good opportunity for more social and commercial housing in Greenwich, which would be part of their overall plan.
But, and it is a big but ,politically it would be very inadvisable. Other local residents may not want more housing (although some would no doubt prefer this to 25+ home games a season.
Local businesses wouldn't be happy, the borough would lose an employer and a company that brings a lot of "customers" into the borough.
Any planning application would be fought and the shadow of the Valley Party would loom large.
The football club and Trust as seen as important benefits to the area.
Everything except the social housing element is only true while there is a football club there, or a realistic chance of a football club being there in the very near future. How long would it take to not be be true?
I have no idea of the answer to this question, I am sure someone will be able to answer it.
The common assumption, which I am sure is correct, is that there is next to chance of getting planning permission to build residential/commercial developments on the site of the Valley and/or Sparrows Lane.
How would the council etc veiw a change of use if there was no occupation of either site? A football ground with no football team is hardly a asset of community value.
All other things being equal the Valley would be seen as a good opportunity for more social and commercial housing in Greenwich, which would be part of their overall plan.
But, and it is a big but ,politically it would be very inadvisable. Other local residents may not want more housing (although some would no doubt prefer this to 25+ home games a season.
Local businesses wouldn't be happy, the borough would lose an employer and a company that brings a lot of "customers" into the borough.
Any planning application would be fought and the shadow of the Valley Party would loom large.
The football club and Trust as seen as important benefits to the area.
Everything except the social housing element is only true while there is a football club there, or a realistic chance of a football club being there in the very near future. How long would it take to not be be true?
Would be my concern too. If he's in it for the long game, how long before the ground deteriorates to the extent that redevelopment is seen as a better option? Even more if there were to be a couple of 'mysterious' fires that would speed things along (didn't something similar happen to an adjoining property when WHL was being redeveloped?)
RD bundles up debts + club + properties as one package. The whole thing needs to be separated out, under threat of the EFL nuclear option. SL is acquired by not-for-profit but ambitious CACT, using their special status to get soft finance, to take their community development to a whole new level. CAFC becomes their long-term tenant on a peppercorn rent. The club and The Valley are bought out by new, serious investors at the right money, possibly with fans allowed a VIP-style contribution. That leaves RD to swallow his losses. He kicks his bookkeepers in the bollocks, sends LdT back to the factory floor whence he came and finally retires to his new hobby of part-time signwriter. If only.
I have no idea of the answer to this question, I am sure someone will be able to answer it.
The common assumption, which I am sure is correct, is that there is next to chance of getting planning permission to build residential/commercial developments on the site of the Valley and/or Sparrows Lane.
How would the council etc veiw a change of use if there was no occupation of either site? A football ground with no football team is hardly a asset of community value.
All other things being equal the Valley would be seen as a good opportunity for more social and commercial housing in Greenwich, which would be part of their overall plan.
But, and it is a big but ,politically it would be very inadvisable. Other local residents may not want more housing (although some would no doubt prefer this to 25+ home games a season.
Local businesses wouldn't be happy, the borough would lose an employer and a company that brings a lot of "customers" into the borough.
Any planning application would be fought and the shadow of the Valley Party would loom large.
The football club and Trust as seen as important benefits to the area.
Everything except the social housing element is only true while there is a football club there, or a realistic chance of a football club being there in the very near future. How long would it take to not be be true?
But what if we moved to the Peninsula (sorry!) - presumably The Valley would then be ripe for development and likely to get planning permission for residential/commercial/social or a combination of all three.
Ground share with Ebbsfleet (or worse!)? I wouldn't put it past him.
Jordan speculated on Talk Sport that the value was 20 to 30m, but then clarified the next day, saying he had spoken to a few people, and thought it was nearer 50m. What is your information/guess on the figure Airman? I would be interested to know, as well as your confidence in it.
There isn't a reliable way of valuing football clubs - the current assets (players and property) cannot generally be sold for reliable values on the open market, future costs and revenues cannot de determined with any degree of certainty. You really are at the mercy of the egos of the buyers and sellers - unfortunately in our case one of those is RD.
As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.
An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.
I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.
I guess you are one of those that do give their £25 plus to Roly at 1500hrs and then moan later about the guy - unbelievable 😎
For me what is unbelievable is that you claim to be a Charlton fan who sees boycotting as taking some sort of moral high ground. A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
I am not claiming to hold any moral high ground, just simply stating a fact that I cant understand how ppl can put money into Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and bitch about him for the rest of the week - oxymoron.
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
Im not going to criticise you @PeterGage nor question your Charlton credentials as I know what they are and I have far too much respect for you and others.
And I also understand your argument. Indeed I never renewed my season ticket a couple of seasons ago as I too felt a fraud through protesting and then paying my money.
But with one side of your argument there are also other sides.
Would you not equally agree that that £25 that ‘lines Roland’s pockets’ also goes towards paying Lyle Taylor’s wages, Josh Cullen and Bielik’s loan fees, and the wages of everyone of those players that busted an absolute gut in our shirt on Saturday?
That it pays Tracey Leaburn’s wages and a whole host of long serving staff that have been here long before Roland and who many equally can’t stand what he’s done to the club? That if more people paid their £25 than currently are the club would have a better chance of securing Joe Aribo as a Charlton player for the next 3 years?
And finally, that the badge, The Valley and heart and spirit of being ‘Charlton’ is so much more than a distant overseas man that currently owns it at this specific point in time?
It’s never straight forward and there is no convincing argument either way imo. I can’t only speak for myself and say I got back back into it and I am so so pleased that I did as I’ve loved seeing the commitment and football played by our players, particularly since Bowyer has taken over.
It won’t even be a consideration. Even capacity crowds would not eliminate the current operating loss and RD isn’t going to put in a penny more than he needs to keep the club going for a sale. He would just pocket the extra money and laugh at at anyone who had believed otherwise.
How is he pocketing anything? The club runs at a massive loss.
It will determine, along with the eventual sale price and any intervening player sales, how much he ultimately loses. So, yes, he will pocket the difference.
Ah, I see what you mean, although he's deffinately going to lose a small fortune so I'm not sure we can call it pocketing.
If you believe, as I do, that his goal is to exit football as a whole with a profit, and boast about his business acumen as a result, it is clear that he wants to pocket the money from transfers at this time, and leave the new owners to inherit a squad bereft of talent. That is exactly how he exited Standard. That is why Airman quite rightly points to the close season and the player contract meltdown if we don't have a new owner.
I have no idea of the answer to this question, I am sure someone will be able to answer it.
The common assumption, which I am sure is correct, is that there is next to chance of getting planning permission to build residential/commercial developments on the site of the Valley and/or Sparrows Lane.
How would the council etc veiw a change of use if there was no occupation of either site? A football ground with no football team is hardly a asset of community value.
All other things being equal the Valley would be seen as a good opportunity for more social and commercial housing in Greenwich, which would be part of their overall plan.
But, and it is a big but ,politically it would be very inadvisable. Other local residents may not want more housing (although some would no doubt prefer this to 25+ home games a season.
Local businesses wouldn't be happy, the borough would lose an employer and a company that brings a lot of "customers" into the borough.
Any planning application would be fought and the shadow of the Valley Party would loom large.
The football club and Trust as seen as important benefits to the area.
Everything except the social housing element is only true while there is a football club there, or a realistic chance of a football club being there in the very near future. How long would it take to not be be true?
But what if we moved to the Peninsula (sorry!) - presumably The Valley would then be ripe for development and likely to get planning permission for residential/commercial/social or a combination of all three.
Ground share with Ebbsfleet (or worse!)? I wouldn't put it past him.
Ground sharing is one option, not the one was actually thinking of though. In the worst case scenario when would the directors loans be repable? As I understand it the ACV and directors charges are against the Holdings company, not the football club, although both are owned by baton.
As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.
An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.
I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.
I guess you are one of those that do give their £25 plus to Roly at 1500hrs and then moan later about the guy - unbelievable 😎
For me what is unbelievable is that you claim to be a Charlton fan who sees boycotting as taking some sort of moral high ground. A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
I am not claiming to hold any moral high ground, just simply stating a fact that I cant understand how ppl can put money into Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and bitch about him for the rest of the week - oxymoron.
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
Im not going to criticise you @PeterGage nor question your Charlton credentials as I know what they are and I have far too much respect for you and others.
And I also understand your argument. Indeed I never renewed my season ticket a couple of seasons ago as I too felt a fraud through protesting and then paying my money.
But with one side of your argument there are also other sides.
Would you not equally agree that that £25 that ‘lines Roland’s pockets’ also goes towards paying Lyle Taylor’s wages, Josh Cullen and Bielik’s loan fees, and the wages of everyone of those players that busted an absolute gut in our shirt on Saturday?
That it pays Tracey Leaburn’s wages and a whole host of long serving staff that have been here long before Roland and who many equally can’t stand what he’s done to the club? That if more people paid their £25 than currently are the club would have a better chance of securing Joe Aribo as a Charlton player for the next 3 years?
And finally, that the badge, The Valley and heart and spirit of being ‘Charlton’ is so much more than a distant overseas man that currently owns it at this specific point in time?
It’s never straight forward and there is no convincing argument either way imo. I can’t only speak for myself and say I got back back into it and I am so so pleased that I did as I’ve loved seeing the commitment and football played by our players, particularly since Bowyer has taken over.
It won’t even be a consideration. Even capacity crowds would not eliminate the current operating loss and RD isn’t going to put in a penny more than he needs to keep the club going for a sale. He would just pocket the extra money and laugh at at anyone who had believed otherwise.
How is he pocketing anything? The club runs at a massive loss.
It will determine, along with the eventual sale price and any intervening player sales, how much he ultimately loses. So, yes, he will pocket the difference.
Ah, I see what you mean, although he's deffinately going to lose a small fortune so I'm not sure we can call it pocketing.
If you believe, as I do, that his goal is to exit football as a whole with a profit, and boast about his business acumen as a result, it is clear that he wants to pocket the money from transfers at this time, and leave the new owners to inherit a squad bereft of talent. That is exactly how he exited Standard. That is why Airman quite rightly points to the close season and the player contract meltdown if we don't have a new owner.
But who is he going to sell? He could sell the whole set of professionals at the club and wouldn't get 10% of what it has cost him back. They may well have been his "exit strategy" when he came in but its a bit unrealistic now.
VOTV mentions an independent valuation of the land and gives figures for that.
The other assets ie player contracts, league membership and location (is being in London more desirable than Bolton or Wigan for example) are far more difficult to value.
I haven't seen the VOTV valuation but it should be the value as current use only - i.e. without planning permission for any other use.
In terms of ongoing operations, the club is losing £10m a year so it could be argued that the value of the players' contracts, league membership and 'goodwill' (in very short supply) is offset by the operational losses - unless potential growth (promotion to PL) is taken into account.
So club value zero - asset value as a stadium and training ground maybe £20m. A lot more if both sites, especially SL, could be developed, but the chances of that are remote.
Without going into all the ins and outs of it, the valuation of the land given Is £20m for The Valley and £3m for Sparrows Lane, reflecting their planning status.
Is there really £23m of development potential at the Valley and Sparrows Lane? I have my doubts, their value in continuing use (i.e supporting a loss making entity and little chance of a change in use) and without development potential would be pretty minimal. Isn't this the game the spivs were trying? Unfortunately, I fear they may still be informing his view and I suspect RD's ego is such that he cannot accept that he was done when he originally purchased the club.
VOTV mentions an independent valuation of the land and gives figures for that.
The other assets ie player contracts, league membership and location (is being in London more desirable than Bolton or Wigan for example) are far more difficult to value.
I haven't seen the VOTV valuation but it should be the value as current use only - i.e. without planning permission for any other use.
In terms of ongoing operations, the club is losing £10m a year so it could be argued that the value of the players' contracts, league membership and 'goodwill' (in very short supply) is offset by the operational losses - unless potential growth (promotion to PL) is taken into account.
So club value zero - asset value as a stadium and training ground maybe £20m. A lot more if both sites, especially SL, could be developed, but the chances of that are remote.
Without going into all the ins and outs of it, the valuation of the land given Is £20m for The Valley and £3m for Sparrows Lane, reflecting their planning status.
Then £23m is all the club is worth.
Would you even say its worth that if it costs 50% of the value to operate every year?
There is an opportunity value in potential future earnings based on the fact that the club is a going concern with an EFL licence and a stadium to play in. My view is that this potential just about mitigates the current operating losses.
Tesla haven't made a profit in 15 years yet their market value is $49bn!
Yes - but you have to assess what is the chance of hitting pay dirt in the future. Charlton is probably one of about 30 clubs that would like to reach the Premier League. Tesla is one of the few companies that was looking to do something new and develop electric cars - but watch its valuation crash and burn if and when the feasibility of its product comes into question and it just becomes an also ran.
We really don't want owners who see Charlton as a financial transaction - it is something into which they have to invest love and passion if they want a return.
As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.
An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.
I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.
I guess you are one of those that do give their £25 plus to Roly at 1500hrs and then moan later about the guy - unbelievable 😎
For me what is unbelievable is that you claim to be a Charlton fan who sees boycotting as taking some sort of moral high ground. A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
I am not claiming to hold any moral high ground, just simply stating a fact that I cant understand how ppl can put money into Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and bitch about him for the rest of the week - oxymoron.
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
Im not going to criticise you @PeterGage nor question your Charlton credentials as I know what they are and I have far too much respect for you and others.
And I also understand your argument. Indeed I never renewed my season ticket a couple of seasons ago as I too felt a fraud through protesting and then paying my money.
But with one side of your argument there are also other sides.
Would you not equally agree that that £25 that ‘lines Roland’s pockets’ also goes towards paying Lyle Taylor’s wages, Josh Cullen and Bielik’s loan fees, and the wages of everyone of those players that busted an absolute gut in our shirt on Saturday?
That it pays Tracey Leaburn’s wages and a whole host of long serving staff that have been here long before Roland and who many equally can’t stand what he’s done to the club? That if more people paid their £25 than currently are the club would have a better chance of securing Joe Aribo as a Charlton player for the next 3 years?
And finally, that the badge, The Valley and heart and spirit of being ‘Charlton’ is so much more than a distant overseas man that currently owns it at this specific point in time?
It’s never straight forward and there is no convincing argument either way imo. I can’t only speak for myself and say I got back back into it and I am so so pleased that I did as I’ve loved seeing the commitment and football played by our players, particularly since Bowyer has taken over.
It won’t even be a consideration. Even capacity crowds would not eliminate the current operating loss and RD isn’t going to put in a penny more than he needs to keep the club going for a sale. He would just pocket the extra money and laugh at at anyone who had believed otherwise.
How is he pocketing anything? The club runs at a massive loss.
It will determine, along with the eventual sale price and any intervening player sales, how much he ultimately loses. So, yes, he will pocket the difference.
Ah, I see what you mean, although he's deffinately going to lose a small fortune so I'm not sure we can call it pocketing.
If you believe, as I do, that his goal is to exit football as a whole with a profit, and boast about his business acumen as a result, it is clear that he wants to pocket the money from transfers at this time, and leave the new owners to inherit a squad bereft of talent. That is exactly how he exited Standard. That is why Airman quite rightly points to the close season and the player contract meltdown if we don't have a new owner.
In order to sell players they need to have actual contracts though, surely?
As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.
An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.
I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.
I guess you are one of those that do give their £25 plus to Roly at 1500hrs and then moan later about the guy - unbelievable 😎
For me what is unbelievable is that you claim to be a Charlton fan who sees boycotting as taking some sort of moral high ground. A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
I am not claiming to hold any moral high ground, just simply stating a fact that I cant understand how ppl can put money into Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and bitch about him for the rest of the week - oxymoron.
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
Im not going to criticise you @PeterGage nor question your Charlton credentials as I know what they are and I have far too much respect for you and others.
And I also understand your argument. Indeed I never renewed my season ticket a couple of seasons ago as I too felt a fraud through protesting and then paying my money.
But with one side of your argument there are also other sides.
Would you not equally agree that that £25 that ‘lines Roland’s pockets’ also goes towards paying Lyle Taylor’s wages, Josh Cullen and Bielik’s loan fees, and the wages of everyone of those players that busted an absolute gut in our shirt on Saturday?
That it pays Tracey Leaburn’s wages and a whole host of long serving staff that have been here long before Roland and who many equally can’t stand what he’s done to the club? That if more people paid their £25 than currently are the club would have a better chance of securing Joe Aribo as a Charlton player for the next 3 years?
And finally, that the badge, The Valley and heart and spirit of being ‘Charlton’ is so much more than a distant overseas man that currently owns it at this specific point in time?
It’s never straight forward and there is no convincing argument either way imo. I can’t only speak for myself and say I got back back into it and I am so so pleased that I did as I’ve loved seeing the commitment and football played by our players, particularly since Bowyer has taken over.
It won’t even be a consideration. Even capacity crowds would not eliminate the current operating loss and RD isn’t going to put in a penny more than he needs to keep the club going for a sale. He would just pocket the extra money and laugh at at anyone who had believed otherwise.
How is he pocketing anything? The club runs at a massive loss.
It will determine, along with the eventual sale price and any intervening player sales, how much he ultimately loses. So, yes, he will pocket the difference.
Ah, I see what you mean, although he's deffinately going to lose a small fortune so I'm not sure we can call it pocketing.
If you believe, as I do, that his goal is to exit football as a whole with a profit, and boast about his business acumen as a result, it is clear that he wants to pocket the money from transfers at this time, and leave the new owners to inherit a squad bereft of talent. That is exactly how he exited Standard. That is why Airman quite rightly points to the close season and the player contract meltdown if we don't have a new owner.
In order to sell players they need to have actual contracts though, surely?
Would anyone other than Taylor command a fee?
Hence why Steve Gallen said in September that Roland wanted the "assets" signed up on longer contracts.
As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.
An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.
I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.
I guess you are one of those that do give their £25 plus to Roly at 1500hrs and then moan later about the guy - unbelievable 😎
For me what is unbelievable is that you claim to be a Charlton fan who sees boycotting as taking some sort of moral high ground. A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
I am not claiming to hold any moral high ground, just simply stating a fact that I cant understand how ppl can put money into Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and bitch about him for the rest of the week - oxymoron.
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
But new owners will be open to scrutiny by fans, and the fact that they’re paying their £25 won’t alter that.
Agreed, but there are differing levels of "scrutiny". We all seem to agree that Roly's level of scrunity is of the highest order for the way he has ran the club for the last 4 year's plus. Hence my 3pm and 5pm comments, which I stick by.
Not knocking you. ‘Soft’ boycotter myself. Have no idea if boycotting affects Roland or not, but I think it helped at Blackpool.
As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.
An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.
I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.
I guess you are one of those that do give their £25 plus to Roly at 1500hrs and then moan later about the guy - unbelievable 😎
For me what is unbelievable is that you claim to be a Charlton fan who sees boycotting as taking some sort of moral high ground. A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
I am not claiming to hold any moral high ground, just simply stating a fact that I cant understand how ppl can put money into Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and bitch about him for the rest of the week - oxymoron.
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
Im not going to criticise you @PeterGage nor question your Charlton credentials as I know what they are and I have far too much respect for you and others.
And I also understand your argument. Indeed I never renewed my season ticket a couple of seasons ago as I too felt a fraud through protesting and then paying my money.
But with one side of your argument there are also other sides.
Would you not equally agree that that £25 that ‘lines Roland’s pockets’ also goes towards paying Lyle Taylor’s wages, Josh Cullen and Bielik’s loan fees, and the wages of everyone of those players that busted an absolute gut in our shirt on Saturday?
That it pays Tracey Leaburn’s wages and a whole host of long serving staff that have been here long before Roland and who many equally can’t stand what he’s done to the club? That if more people paid their £25 than currently are the club would have a better chance of securing Joe Aribo as a Charlton player for the next 3 years?
And finally, that the badge, The Valley and heart and spirit of being ‘Charlton’ is so much more than a distant overseas man that currently owns it at this specific point in time?
It’s never straight forward and there is no convincing argument either way imo. I can’t only speak for myself and say I got back back into it and I am so so pleased that I did as I’ve loved seeing the commitment and football played by our players, particularly since Bowyer has taken over.
It won’t even be a consideration. Even capacity crowds would not eliminate the current operating loss and RD isn’t going to put in a penny more than he needs to keep the club going for a sale. He would just pocket the extra money and laugh at at anyone who had believed otherwise.
How is he pocketing anything? The club runs at a massive loss.
It will determine, along with the eventual sale price and any intervening player sales, how much he ultimately loses. So, yes, he will pocket the difference.
Ah, I see what you mean, although he's deffinately going to lose a small fortune so I'm not sure we can call it pocketing.
If you believe, as I do, that his goal is to exit football as a whole with a profit, and boast about his business acumen as a result, it is clear that he wants to pocket the money from transfers at this time, and leave the new owners to inherit a squad bereft of talent. That is exactly how he exited Standard. That is why Airman quite rightly points to the close season and the player contract meltdown if we don't have a new owner.
In order to sell players they need to have actual contracts though, surely?
Would anyone other than Taylor command a fee?
Sarr if he keeps up his form for the rest of the season.
As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.
An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.
I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.
I guess you are one of those that do give their £25 plus to Roly at 1500hrs and then moan later about the guy - unbelievable 😎
For me what is unbelievable is that you claim to be a Charlton fan who sees boycotting as taking some sort of moral high ground. A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
I am not claiming to hold any moral high ground, just simply stating a fact that I cant understand how ppl can put money into Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and bitch about him for the rest of the week - oxymoron.
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
Im not going to criticise you @PeterGage nor question your Charlton credentials as I know what they are and I have far too much respect for you and others.
And I also understand your argument. Indeed I never renewed my season ticket a couple of seasons ago as I too felt a fraud through protesting and then paying my money.
But with one side of your argument there are also other sides.
Would you not equally agree that that £25 that ‘lines Roland’s pockets’ also goes towards paying Lyle Taylor’s wages, Josh Cullen and Bielik’s loan fees, and the wages of everyone of those players that busted an absolute gut in our shirt on Saturday?
That it pays Tracey Leaburn’s wages and a whole host of long serving staff that have been here long before Roland and who many equally can’t stand what he’s done to the club? That if more people paid their £25 than currently are the club would have a better chance of securing Joe Aribo as a Charlton player for the next 3 years?
And finally, that the badge, The Valley and heart and spirit of being ‘Charlton’ is so much more than a distant overseas man that currently owns it at this specific point in time?
It’s never straight forward and there is no convincing argument either way imo. I can’t only speak for myself and say I got back back into it and I am so so pleased that I did as I’ve loved seeing the commitment and football played by our players, particularly since Bowyer has taken over.
It won’t even be a consideration. Even capacity crowds would not eliminate the current operating loss and RD isn’t going to put in a penny more than he needs to keep the club going for a sale. He would just pocket the extra money and laugh at at anyone who had believed otherwise.
How is he pocketing anything? The club runs at a massive loss.
It will determine, along with the eventual sale price and any intervening player sales, how much he ultimately loses. So, yes, he will pocket the difference.
Ah, I see what you mean, although he's deffinately going to lose a small fortune so I'm not sure we can call it pocketing.
If you believe, as I do, that his goal is to exit football as a whole with a profit, and boast about his business acumen as a result, it is clear that he wants to pocket the money from transfers at this time, and leave the new owners to inherit a squad bereft of talent. That is exactly how he exited Standard. That is why Airman quite rightly points to the close season and the player contract meltdown if we don't have a new owner.
In order to sell players they need to have actual contracts though, surely?
Would anyone other than Taylor command a fee?
Sarr if he keeps up his form for the rest of the season.
Losing both CBs would be awesome, we really, really need to win The play offs!
As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.
An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.
I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.
I guess you are one of those that do give their £25 plus to Roly at 1500hrs and then moan later about the guy - unbelievable 😎
For me what is unbelievable is that you claim to be a Charlton fan who sees boycotting as taking some sort of moral high ground. A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
I am not claiming to hold any moral high ground, just simply stating a fact that I cant understand how ppl can put money into Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and bitch about him for the rest of the week - oxymoron.
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
Im not going to criticise you @PeterGage nor question your Charlton credentials as I know what they are and I have far too much respect for you and others.
And I also understand your argument. Indeed I never renewed my season ticket a couple of seasons ago as I too felt a fraud through protesting and then paying my money.
But with one side of your argument there are also other sides.
Would you not equally agree that that £25 that ‘lines Roland’s pockets’ also goes towards paying Lyle Taylor’s wages, Josh Cullen and Bielik’s loan fees, and the wages of everyone of those players that busted an absolute gut in our shirt on Saturday?
That it pays Tracey Leaburn’s wages and a whole host of long serving staff that have been here long before Roland and who many equally can’t stand what he’s done to the club? That if more people paid their £25 than currently are the club would have a better chance of securing Joe Aribo as a Charlton player for the next 3 years?
And finally, that the badge, The Valley and heart and spirit of being ‘Charlton’ is so much more than a distant overseas man that currently owns it at this specific point in time?
It’s never straight forward and there is no convincing argument either way imo. I can’t only speak for myself and say I got back back into it and I am so so pleased that I did as I’ve loved seeing the commitment and football played by our players, particularly since Bowyer has taken over.
It won’t even be a consideration. Even capacity crowds would not eliminate the current operating loss and RD isn’t going to put in a penny more than he needs to keep the club going for a sale. He would just pocket the extra money and laugh at at anyone who had believed otherwise.
How is he pocketing anything? The club runs at a massive loss.
It will determine, along with the eventual sale price and any intervening player sales, how much he ultimately loses. So, yes, he will pocket the difference.
Ah, I see what you mean, although he's deffinately going to lose a small fortune so I'm not sure we can call it pocketing.
If you believe, as I do, that his goal is to exit football as a whole with a profit, and boast about his business acumen as a result, it is clear that he wants to pocket the money from transfers at this time, and leave the new owners to inherit a squad bereft of talent. That is exactly how he exited Standard. That is why Airman quite rightly points to the close season and the player contract meltdown if we don't have a new owner.
In order to sell players they need to have actual contracts though, surely?
Would anyone other than Taylor command a fee?
Hence why Steve Gallen said in September that Roland wanted the "assets" signed up on longer contracts.
What the club says, what gets leaked and what actually happens are normally, now, 3 diffrent things.
As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.
An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.
I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.
I guess you are one of those that do give their £25 plus to Roly at 1500hrs and then moan later about the guy - unbelievable 😎
For me what is unbelievable is that you claim to be a Charlton fan who sees boycotting as taking some sort of moral high ground. A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
I am not claiming to hold any moral high ground, just simply stating a fact that I cant understand how ppl can put money into Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and bitch about him for the rest of the week - oxymoron.
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
But new owners will be open to scrutiny by fans, and the fact that they’re paying their £25 won’t alter that.
Agreed, but there are differing levels of "scrutiny". We all seem to agree that Roly's level of scrunity is of the highest order for the way he has ran the club for the last 4 year's plus. Hence my 3pm and 5pm comments, which I stick by.
Not knocking you. ‘Soft’ boycotter myself. Have no idea if boycotting affects Roland or not, but I think it helped at Blackpool.
You can't really compare Blackpool with Charlton - the Oystons never had the financial resources of RD and were possibly even worse than him. They took a lot of money out of the club after the spell in the Prem whereas RD hasn't managed to given how abysmally he's run it.
There are plenty of crap owners out there unfortunately.
Well if 65 million is what his after then we are screwed. No one will pay that even if we do get promoted! Feeling despondent!
If we get promoted, Roland will want nearer £90M.
I get the feeling that if the owner received a bid of £90m he would be convinced that there is someone out there who would match his imagination with a bid of £120m.
This is exactly what we, or rather those with an interest in buying the club, are dealing with.
We really don't want owners who see Charlton as a financial transaction - it is something into which they have to invest love and passion if they want a return.
How many of the foreign investors into football do it because they love the clubs?
Wigan, to take a recent example have now been taken over by Hong Kong investors, I doubt they're doing it because they love the club or town.
I have no idea of the answer to this question, I am sure someone will be able to answer it.
The common assumption, which I am sure is correct, is that there is next to chance of getting planning permission to build residential/commercial developments on the site of the Valley and/or Sparrows Lane.
How would the council etc veiw a change of use if there was no occupation of either site? A football ground with no football team is hardly a asset of community value.
All other things being equal the Valley would be seen as a good opportunity for more social and commercial housing in Greenwich, which would be part of their overall plan.
But, and it is a big but ,politically it would be very inadvisable. Other local residents may not want more housing (although some would no doubt prefer this to 25+ home games a season.
Local businesses wouldn't be happy, the borough would lose an employer and a company that brings a lot of "customers" into the borough.
Any planning application would be fought and the shadow of the Valley Party would loom large.
The football club and Trust as seen as important benefits to the area.
Everything except the social housing element is only true while there is a football club there, or a realistic chance of a football club being there in the very near future. How long would it take to not be be true?
Would be my concern too. If he's in it for the long game, how long before the ground deteriorates to the extent that redevelopment is seen as a better option? Even more if there were to be a couple of 'mysterious' fires that would speed things along (didn't something similar happen to an adjoining property when WHL was being redeveloped?)
We really don't want owners who see Charlton as a financial transaction - it is something into which they have to invest love and passion if they want a return.
How many of the foreign investors into football do it because they love the clubs?
Wigan, to take a recent example have now been taken over by Hong Kong investors, I doubt they're doing it because they love the club or town.
Exactly. Unless we can find a Charlton fan with a spare 80million+ then we are not getting taken over by someone who is doing it out of the kindness of their heart.
I have no idea of the answer to this question, I am sure someone will be able to answer it.
The common assumption, which I am sure is correct, is that there is next to chance of getting planning permission to build residential/commercial developments on the site of the Valley and/or Sparrows Lane.
How would the council etc veiw a change of use if there was no occupation of either site? A football ground with no football team is hardly a asset of community value.
All other things being equal the Valley would be seen as a good opportunity for more social and commercial housing in Greenwich, which would be part of their overall plan.
But, and it is a big but ,politically it would be very inadvisable. Other local residents may not want more housing (although some would no doubt prefer this to 25+ home games a season.
Local businesses wouldn't be happy, the borough would lose an employer and a company that brings a lot of "customers" into the borough.
Any planning application would be fought and the shadow of the Valley Party would loom large.
The football club and Trust as seen as important benefits to the area.
Everything except the social housing element is only true while there is a football club there, or a realistic chance of a football club being there in the very near future. How long would it take to not be be true?
Would be my concern too. If he's in it for the long game, how long before the ground deteriorates to the extent that redevelopment is seen as a better option? Even more if there were to be a couple of 'mysterious' fires that would speed things along (didn't something similar happen to an adjoining property when WHL was being redeveloped?)
Comments
All other things being equal the Valley would be seen as a good opportunity for more social and commercial housing in Greenwich, which would be part of their overall plan.
But, and it is a big but ,politically it would be very inadvisable. Other local residents may not want more housing (although some would no doubt prefer this to 25+ home games a season.
Local businesses wouldn't be happy, the borough would lose an employer and a company that brings a lot of "customers" into the borough.
Any planning application would be fought and the shadow of the Valley Party would loom large.
The football club and Trust as seen as important benefits to the area.
This is the big flaw in RD's thinking. He wants all the benefits of Charlton being a proper football club without taking responsibility of running the club as one. It just doesn't work. The EFL must surely see that allowing a (?fit and proper?) "amateur" to participate weakens the whole structure of the League and diminishes the endeavours of all the diligent owners like Andy Holt who are really really trying hard to make it all work. RD steadily allowing his own club to degrade is disrespectful and perilous for its peers as well as itself.
Yes Roland has been a terrible owner for us, but from the EFL's point of view the club is still functioning normally and is in the playoff positions in L1. The nature of football is that there are good owners and bad owners, and not all clubs can be successful.
RD bundles up debts + club + properties as one package. The whole thing needs to be separated out, under threat of the EFL nuclear option. SL is acquired by not-for-profit but ambitious CACT, using their special status to get soft finance, to take their community development to a whole new level. CAFC becomes their long-term tenant on a peppercorn rent. The club and The Valley are bought out by new, serious investors at the right money, possibly with fans allowed a VIP-style contribution. That leaves RD to swallow his losses. He kicks his bookkeepers in the bollocks, sends LdT back to the factory floor whence he came and finally retires to his new hobby of part-time signwriter. If only.
But what if we moved to the Peninsula (sorry!) - presumably The Valley would then be ripe for development and likely to get planning permission for residential/commercial/social or a combination of all three.
Ground share with Ebbsfleet (or worse!)? I wouldn't put it past him.
There isn't a reliable way of valuing football clubs - the current assets (players and property) cannot generally be sold for reliable values on the open market, future costs and revenues cannot de determined with any degree of certainty. You really are at the mercy of the egos of the buyers and sellers - unfortunately in our case one of those is RD.
Is there really £23m of development potential at the Valley and Sparrows Lane? I have my doubts, their value in continuing use (i.e supporting a loss making entity and little chance of a change in use) and without development potential would be pretty minimal. Isn't this the game the spivs were trying? Unfortunately, I fear they may still be informing his view and I suspect RD's ego is such that he cannot accept that he was done when he originally purchased the club.
Would anyone other than Taylor command a fee?
Have no idea if boycotting affects Roland or not, but I think it helped at Blackpool.
Losing both CBs would be awesome, we really, really need to win The play offs!
There are plenty of crap owners out there unfortunately.
Wigan, to take a recent example have now been taken over by Hong Kong investors, I doubt they're doing it because they love the club or town.