The problem that some people have is that whilst Duchatelet is killing us, they think we are safe under his wing because he is loaded. I focus on the killing us bit. The situation of being totally reliant on a mad man is perilous in the extreme. The damage that is being done to the club in terms of losing fans it took years to build up is immense. We have become a very sick patient under Duchatelet's twisted care.
Yes, tearing ourselves away from his malevolent grip carries it's own risks, but it has to be done. And sooner rather than later, before it is too late! I think everybody has their limits. I have reset my optimism a few times under the current regime. We just need two or three of the right players in the next window etc... It has dawned on me however, that the next window will always be poor and if you keep getting kicked in the teeth, at some point you come to the conclusion that nothing is going to change. Death by Duchatelet is one by a thousand cuts.
Now there is a point were everybody will realise that this regime just haven't got a clue. The vast majority have passed it. Some are saying, I am not happy, but I am just giving them the summer. It is like the battered wife giving her bastard husband another chance. He promises not to do it again, seems genuine, and she believes him whilst everybody else knows that a leopard never changes his spots. I knew the winter window would be a poor one and given that we had just appointed a new manager, that shouldn't have been the case! I am critical of aspects of Robinson's performance, but I don't believe he has been properly backed. It is no good saying we were trying to spend this or that! It is like giving your kid a colouring book for Christmas, but telling them you tried to get them a Playstation 4, but they were sold out! You find an alternative.
If we continue like this we will have fewer and fewer fans, and the Valley with masses of empty seats is a pretty depressing place to watch your football. We will be too far gone to recover, when Duchatelet decides to call it a day! It is depressing now, but it can and will get worse. I recall the days, not so very long ago when it was buzzing, the days when the top clubs in the country came here knowing they had a real battle on their hands. The days wen Sir Alex respectfully said it was one of the most intimdating places to visit.
Like the institionalised patient, locked in the sanitarium for years, when potential rescurers are on the horizon, rather than run to them, they show caution. You can always fill in the gaps in your knowledge and replace those with negative scenarios. They give you an excuse to carry on dying in comfort! But what we have to do is get out of the grip of the evil mad man that is suffocating us. Look around us with optimism, and fight the fight like we did after we nearly went out of business and when we lost our beloved Valley. All together, all with an eye on continuous improvement. The owners, the manager, the players, the fans, the tea lady! The Australians can't buy us soon enough as far as I am concerned, and when they do, I will embrace them and do everything I can, however small, to bring the good days back. If you are too fightened to fail, you will never succeed!
Waltzing Matilda, walting Matilda, who'll come a watzing Matilda with me? Let's sing this and let them know we want them,
I expect this Consortium would have had to show Duchatalet proof of their ability to match his asking price for the Club - whether or not it includes The Valley. If they don't have the funds, he may as well talk to me about selling the Club.
My understanding is that this Consortium are seeking further backing to be able to invest into the Club to realistically fulfil the ambitions stated within their five year plan.
The promise of fantastic returns on your investment once lil' ole Charlton get to the Premiership is surely worth the gamble of your spare Aussie Dollars?
I'm not sure that the fundraising hasn't already been completed. If you read the Mail article, it's clearly quoting in part from the Australian Football Consortium website. That website states the fundraising was due to be done in March. As we are now middle April, it should be complete.
I get that feeling too Neil, as you say they say the fundraising was due to happen in March - and all other pointers seem to indicate that they have it (exclusivity, meetings in coffee shops in Oz etc) already. Duchatelet wouldnt have given them exclusivity unless he knew they had the dosh in a Bank account. I would guess they are just rounding off the legal and money bits (maybe the accountant in the cupboard was true after all?), and putting together the final date for it all to happen.
Surely "the club " includes the ground. Nothing I've read suggests the ground would be excluded from the deal.
This , all the rest is just speculation. Until we know all the details, how do we know if The Valley is included in the sale or not, it might have just been unfortunately worded. Is there enough time to get a few hundred green and gold scarves made up before the Swindon game , as we all sing Waltzing Matilda ?
Surely "the club " includes the ground. Nothing I've read suggests the ground would be excluded from the deal.
This , all the rest is just speculation. Until we know all the details, how do we know if The Valley is included in the sale or not, it might have just been unfortunately worded. Is there enough time to get a few hundred green and gold scarves made up before the Swindon game , as we all sing Waltzing Matilda ?
Whoever 'the72.co.uk' is, they do say confidently
'We can now confirm that the Australian Football Consortium LTD have no intention of purchasing The Valley, the spiritual home and holy ground of the Addicks, and will remain under Duchatelet ownership.'
Read about this on teletext but haven't read the other 600odd posts on the thread. Since Duchatelet took over the club we have seen what feels like the death of a thousand cuts and truthfully this season has been amongst the worst I have personally witnessed in the 56 years I have been supporting Charlton. There has been absolutely nothing positive coming out of Duchatelet tenure as owner of our club, we have been lumbered with a clueless, arrogant CEO and bargain basement managers who take the job because they need to pay the mortgage and are happy to work under ridiculous restrictions regarding player recruitment and selection.
However I have often wondered "What comes next after Duchatelet?" "Who exactly will buy our club?" my fears have always been that Duchatelet will redevelop the ground to get money back, why not he's a business man with absolutely no affiliation to the club, money is his god. So I have been hoping for someone to come in and take the club out of this arseholes grip and push us forwards.
This deal if real would appear to be less than edifying as we will not be rid of Duchatelet he will be the bloody landlord and you can bet your last penny he won't be happy with a pepper corn rent as he well knows the value of the real estate that constitutes The Valley. Given this scenario potentially any consortium will struggle to pay the rent and have funds to build a team if I was a conspiracy theorist (which I am definitely not) I would start to think this was Duchatelet's way of doing exactly what he planned all along i.e. the redevelopment of The Valley.
We should not trust him and this deal to me looks like a means to abdicate costs of the team and cash in on the value of the ground. Getting rid of this man should be a priority but all I caution is be careful what you wish for, because in reality if he still owns the ground, well we haven't got rid of at all.
Surely "the club " includes the ground. Nothing I've read suggests the ground would be excluded from the deal.
This , all the rest is just speculation. Until we know all the details, how do we know if The Valley is included in the sale or not, it might have just been unfortunately worded. Is there enough time to get a few hundred green and gold scarves made up before the Swindon game , as we all sing Waltzing Matilda ?
Whoever 'the72.co.uk' is, they do say confidently
'We can now confirm that the Australian Football Consortium LTD have no intention of purchasing The Valley, the spiritual home and holy ground of the Addicks, and will remain under Duchatelet ownership.'
I could be wrong, but I always got the impression that the writer on there is just a fan who is probably no more informed than the rest of us.
I thought I saw tweets from the Mail jounos said they were reporting the deal as they understood it and that they understood there could be a lease arranged for the Valley.
Question - maybe @Alwaysneil knows. Who owns Stayen, RD or the council? The council certainly own Jena's ground, but RD is involved in a grand plan with them to develop it on the Stayen model. What about Alcorcon, who owns their ground? (@CharltonMadrid, might you know?) I will check Ujpest.
I am starting to wonder if RD views the standard British situation of a club owning its ground as another silly anachronism that he needs to break down as part of his vision for profitability. So for him it might be entirely logical for him to keep the Valley, and develop it Stayen style.
But what would be the value of Charlton without the real estate? Based on its recent trading results, I would say £1. RD bought the whole thing, in the Championship, including the real estate for £14m.
Of course the stadium lease model can work. RD will point out it is normal on the continent. It is certainly wrking for West Ham, financially. But over there, the landlord is the taxpayer, represented by incompetent public officials, while the club is represented by razor sharp business people. I can't see RD being a benign landlord.
Incidentally I was reading about Coventry and SISU last night. It seems the Council asking price for rent of the Ricoh originally was 100k per month. Unclear who paid matchday overheads, but doubt the Council did. So RD would use that, rather than the Olympic Stadium, as a rental benchmark, I reckon.
@big in brasov knows more about this than me. I seem to remember Duchatelet split off the stadium ownership of Sint Truiden from the club. He had a load of debts outstanding from the club (sound familiar?) so insisted on not only on the revenue from the restaurant, hotel etc for the property part but also around EUR 2 per match ticket sold and also a share of the TV money.
This is my concern with rumours that the club and the ground could be separated, Duchatelet has form.
Just hope if we are to be acquired by AFC Ltd, they manage to negotiate a decent deal here.
Having read that, it sounds correct (about STVV). I now recall reading that.
So, I am now worried that indeed he is trying to set up what we should now call the Stayen Model.
But why any sensible business people would pay significant money for the club without the Valley, when they know RD paid £14m just 3 years ago for the whole thing, and since then he has devalued the playing assets, and greatly reduced the prospect of FAPL revenue, is completely beyond me.
The Coventry game is a clear example of what will happen if the ground is not included in the deal. The Ricoh stadium now belongs to Wasps rugby club. The football club are looking for a new ground.
I can see a potential problem with theory of buying the Valley back in say 5 years when (or if) we reach the PL. Unles Sky somehow manage to stop it's customers using 'other' ways of watching their product I can see the amount of money they spend on the rights shrinking thus the PL not being the promised land it is now.
Then again it may make it easier to actually get there...........
They recently got a court ruling in their favour that's making life trickier for illegal streamers. I heard that Sunday afternoon figures are down by about 20%, so they certainly have to do something. The company appears to be scraping every penny together for the next round of rights though. Redundancies across the company and budget slashes in every department. I think they might be fearing a much bigger fish (most likely Google, but imagine the dominance Netflix would have if they moved into sports streaming).
Not takeovwe related but wondering if you could provide a link for the recent court case i like to keep my eye on these things
Surely "the club " includes the ground. Nothing I've read suggests the ground would be excluded from the deal.
The journalist who broke The Mail story has explicitly said it's his understanding the sale does not involve The Valley and that it would be leased back to us by Duchatelet.
Surely "the club " includes the ground. Nothing I've read suggests the ground would be excluded from the deal.
The journalist who broke The Mail story has explicitly said it's his understanding the sale does not involve The Valley and that it would be leased back to us by Duchatelet.
Why cant he just fuck off and leave us alone,hes done enough damage.
Question - maybe @Alwaysneil knows. Who owns Stayen, RD or the council? The council certainly own Jena's ground, but RD is involved in a grand plan with them to develop it on the Stayen model. What about Alcorcon, who owns their ground? (@CharltonMadrid, might you know?) I will check Ujpest.
I am starting to wonder if RD views the standard British situation of a club owning its ground as another silly anachronism that he needs to break down as part of his vision for profitability. So for him it might be entirely logical for him to keep the Valley, and develop it Stayen style.
But what would be the value of Charlton without the real estate? Based on its recent trading results, I would say £1. RD bought the whole thing, in the Championship, including the real estate for £14m.
Of course the stadium lease model can work. RD will point out it is normal on the continent. It is certainly wrking for West Ham, financially. But over there, the landlord is the taxpayer, represented by incompetent public officials, while the club is represented by razor sharp business people. I can't see RD being a benign landlord.
Incidentally I was reading about Coventry and SISU last night. It seems the Council asking price for rent of the Ricoh originally was 100k per month. Unclear who paid matchday overheads, but doubt the Council did. So RD would use that, rather than the Olympic Stadium, as a rental benchmark, I reckon.
@big in brasov knows more about this than me. I seem to remember Duchatelet split off the stadium ownership of Sint Truiden from the club. He had a load of debts outstanding from the club (sound familiar?) so insisted on not only on the revenue from the restaurant, hotel etc for the property part but also around EUR 2 per match ticket sold and also a share of the TV money.
This is my concern with rumours that the club and the ground could be separated, Duchatelet has form.
Just hope if we are to be acquired by AFC Ltd, they manage to negotiate a decent deal here.
Having read that, it sounds correct (about STVV). I now recall reading that.
So, I am now worried that indeed he is trying to set up what we should now call the Stayen Model.
But why any sensible business people would pay significant money for the club without the Valley, when they know RD paid £14m just 3 years ago for the whole thing, and since then he has devalued the playing assets, and greatly reduced the prospect of FAPL revenue, is completely beyond me.
As I posted earlier, if your business model is based around investing to get to the rewards of the PL in 5 years and then selling up, why bother with owning The Valley ? It doesn't increase in value as a PL ground.
Question - maybe @Alwaysneil knows. Who owns Stayen, RD or the council? The council certainly own Jena's ground, but RD is involved in a grand plan with them to develop it on the Stayen model. What about Alcorcon, who owns their ground? (@CharltonMadrid, might you know?) I will check Ujpest.
I am starting to wonder if RD views the standard British situation of a club owning its ground as another silly anachronism that he needs to break down as part of his vision for profitability. So for him it might be entirely logical for him to keep the Valley, and develop it Stayen style.
But what would be the value of Charlton without the real estate? Based on its recent trading results, I would say £1. RD bought the whole thing, in the Championship, including the real estate for £14m.
Of course the stadium lease model can work. RD will point out it is normal on the continent. It is certainly wrking for West Ham, financially. But over there, the landlord is the taxpayer, represented by incompetent public officials, while the club is represented by razor sharp business people. I can't see RD being a benign landlord.
Incidentally I was reading about Coventry and SISU last night. It seems the Council asking price for rent of the Ricoh originally was 100k per month. Unclear who paid matchday overheads, but doubt the Council did. So RD would use that, rather than the Olympic Stadium, as a rental benchmark, I reckon.
@big in brasov knows more about this than me. I seem to remember Duchatelet split off the stadium ownership of Sint Truiden from the club. He had a load of debts outstanding from the club (sound familiar?) so insisted on not only on the revenue from the restaurant, hotel etc for the property part but also around EUR 2 per match ticket sold and also a share of the TV money.
This is my concern with rumours that the club and the ground could be separated, Duchatelet has form.
Just hope if we are to be acquired by AFC Ltd, they manage to negotiate a decent deal here.
Having read that, it sounds correct (about STVV). I now recall reading that.
So, I am now worried that indeed he is trying to set up what we should now call the Stayen Model.
But why any sensible business people would pay significant money for the club without the Valley, when they know RD paid £14m just 3 years ago for the whole thing, and since then he has devalued the playing assets, and greatly reduced the prospect of FAPL revenue, is completely beyond me.
As I posted earlier, if your business model is based around investing to get to the rewards of the PL in 5 years and then selling up, why bother with owning The Valley ?
Because it gives security of tenure moving forwards so that the subscribers to the IPO have a degree of certainty that the business, now positioned in the most lucrative league in the world, has longevity to deliver the returns year after year.
Question - maybe @Alwaysneil knows. Who owns Stayen, RD or the council? The council certainly own Jena's ground, but RD is involved in a grand plan with them to develop it on the Stayen model. What about Alcorcon, who owns their ground? (@CharltonMadrid, might you know?) I will check Ujpest.
I am starting to wonder if RD views the standard British situation of a club owning its ground as another silly anachronism that he needs to break down as part of his vision for profitability. So for him it might be entirely logical for him to keep the Valley, and develop it Stayen style.
But what would be the value of Charlton without the real estate? Based on its recent trading results, I would say £1. RD bought the whole thing, in the Championship, including the real estate for £14m.
Of course the stadium lease model can work. RD will point out it is normal on the continent. It is certainly wrking for West Ham, financially. But over there, the landlord is the taxpayer, represented by incompetent public officials, while the club is represented by razor sharp business people. I can't see RD being a benign landlord.
Incidentally I was reading about Coventry and SISU last night. It seems the Council asking price for rent of the Ricoh originally was 100k per month. Unclear who paid matchday overheads, but doubt the Council did. So RD would use that, rather than the Olympic Stadium, as a rental benchmark, I reckon.
@big in brasov knows more about this than me. I seem to remember Duchatelet split off the stadium ownership of Sint Truiden from the club. He had a load of debts outstanding from the club (sound familiar?) so insisted on not only on the revenue from the restaurant, hotel etc for the property part but also around EUR 2 per match ticket sold and also a share of the TV money.
This is my concern with rumours that the club and the ground could be separated, Duchatelet has form.
Just hope if we are to be acquired by AFC Ltd, they manage to negotiate a decent deal here.
Having read that, it sounds correct (about STVV). I now recall reading that.
So, I am now worried that indeed he is trying to set up what we should now call the Stayen Model.
But why any sensible business people would pay significant money for the club without the Valley, when they know RD paid £14m just 3 years ago for the whole thing, and since then he has devalued the playing assets, and greatly reduced the prospect of FAPL revenue, is completely beyond me.
As I posted earlier, if your business model is based around investing to get to the rewards of the PL in 5 years and then selling up, why bother with owning The Valley ?
Because it gives security of tenure moving forwards so that the subscribers to the IPO have a degree of certainty that the business, now positioned in the most lucrative league in the world, has longevity to deliver the returns year after year.
But from what I've read, that isn't the Australian model and presumably they would be looking for Australian investors ?
In such a scenario it would be ideal if a consortium of wealthy Charlton fans (and perhaps the rest of us) purchased the ground and held it essentially in trust earning rent and perhaps nominal interest from the "owners" without the headache and ongoing substantial financial commitment of running the club.
At least the valley would be owned and protected by Charlton people.
I can't take this story seriously. The whole deal would be so one-sided in Roland's favour that I reckon we'd be in admin within a year. Roland has sold all our best players, there is not another Gomez or Lookman in sight, the consortium is strapped for cash before they even start, and in addition to the losses we're making they have to pay rent, pay off the contracts of the duff players on the books and buy practically a whole new squad. How does that work?
I can't take this story seriously. The whole deal would be so one-sided in Roland's favour that I reckon we'd be in admin within a year. Roland has sold all our best players, there is not another Gomez or Lookman in sight, the consortium is strapped for cash before they even start, and in addition to the losses we're making they have to pay rent, pay off the contracts of the duff players on the books and buy practically a whole new squad. How does that work?
Question - maybe @Alwaysneil knows. Who owns Stayen, RD or the council? The council certainly own Jena's ground, but RD is involved in a grand plan with them to develop it on the Stayen model. What about Alcorcon, who owns their ground? (@CharltonMadrid, might you know?) I will check Ujpest.
I am starting to wonder if RD views the standard British situation of a club owning its ground as another silly anachronism that he needs to break down as part of his vision for profitability. So for him it might be entirely logical for him to keep the Valley, and develop it Stayen style.
But what would be the value of Charlton without the real estate? Based on its recent trading results, I would say £1. RD bought the whole thing, in the Championship, including the real estate for £14m.
Of course the stadium lease model can work. RD will point out it is normal on the continent. It is certainly wrking for West Ham, financially. But over there, the landlord is the taxpayer, represented by incompetent public officials, while the club is represented by razor sharp business people. I can't see RD being a benign landlord.
Incidentally I was reading about Coventry and SISU last night. It seems the Council asking price for rent of the Ricoh originally was 100k per month. Unclear who paid matchday overheads, but doubt the Council did. So RD would use that, rather than the Olympic Stadium, as a rental benchmark, I reckon.
@big in brasov knows more about this than me. I seem to remember Duchatelet split off the stadium ownership of Sint Truiden from the club. He had a load of debts outstanding from the club (sound familiar?) so insisted on not only on the revenue from the restaurant, hotel etc for the property part but also around EUR 2 per match ticket sold and also a share of the TV money.
This is my concern with rumours that the club and the ground could be separated, Duchatelet has form.
Just hope if we are to be acquired by AFC Ltd, they manage to negotiate a decent deal here.
Having read that, it sounds correct (about STVV). I now recall reading that.
So, I am now worried that indeed he is trying to set up what we should now call the Stayen Model.
But why any sensible business people would pay significant money for the club without the Valley, when they know RD paid £14m just 3 years ago for the whole thing, and since then he has devalued the playing assets, and greatly reduced the prospect of FAPL revenue, is completely beyond me.
However, I agree with Prague, why are they paying this much for what is left? Without the biggest asset in The valley being included.
It's like they are just buying the franchise of the club! Which is right up their street. A club, even better in London, for their ex pat market. In a ground that the landlord may have bars and restaurants included. Like a "walkabout" for example.
They won't really annoy the locals as there ain't many left these days!
This feeder team bit also irks me. Feeder for who? They don't own any players, or other clubs. Unless they have plans for somehow getting A league players (which most would struggle in league 2, let alone league 1 or the championship) away from their clubs.
What my fears are is that this talk of share options further down the line and such is that these won't be targeted back home, more likely at an Aussie market. Aussie sponsor's and a total rebranding of anything Charlton. Now I know that the football league will not allow this to completely happen with name changes and the like, but where will it be allowed to stop is my concern.
I really do hope I've got it completely wrong, I must say but I've seen these sort of things happen over here. Even tonight it was on the news that the Western Force rugby union franchise may go or the Melbourne rebels as the league has got to be cut down! What happens to the fans of these team? It drives me right up the wall!
The other thing that will entice the Aussie soccer (football!) fans into pumping money into this franchise idea is the idea of getting one over on the poms in their own backyard.
Now this Aussie consortium hasn't said anything of the like, as far as I'm aware, even listening to that Mark Schwarzer interview earlier he said very very little. So I shouldn't jump the gun I know, but it's who's looking out for Charlton's interest that is my concern?
Rolands only escape plan was redeveloping the Valley for housing while CAFC play at a smaller ground elsewhere. When I raised this suspicion a few years back, folk on here said it was nonsense and that Greenwich would never allow it. Truth is, if CAFC were still playing elsewhere in the borough - LBG would be all for it.
Bexley just announced plans to build 30,000 new homes in their borough, and LBG are under huge pressure to provide more homes.
If we ever get the chance to buy the actual pitch (in small portions) like Chelsea fans did, then we should jump at the chance. Sadly, this is unlikely to happen and the Valley will always be at risk - even though we once bought shares in CAFC to keep it safe.
I believe it is still nonsense. No one is talking about redeveloping The Valley for housing.
Of course not, but like Stayen he could redevelop with hotel, restaurants, bars etc in the misguided view that it will become a constant inflow of cash as well as the rent from the football club. Doesn't he also take a fairly large percentage of gate receipts & merchandise etc from Stayen ?
Rolands only escape plan was redeveloping the Valley for housing while CAFC play at a smaller ground elsewhere. When I raised this suspicion a few years back, folk on here said it was nonsense and that Greenwich would never allow it. Truth is, if CAFC were still playing elsewhere in the borough - LBG would be all for it.
Bexley just announced plans to build 30,000 new homes in their borough, and LBG are under huge pressure to provide more homes.
If we ever get the chance to buy the actual pitch (in small portions) like Chelsea fans did, then we should jump at the chance. Sadly, this is unlikely to happen and the Valley will always be at risk - even though we once bought shares in CAFC to keep it safe.
I believe it is still nonsense. No one is talking about redeveloping The Valley for housing.
Of course not, but like Stayen he could redevelop with hotel, restaurants, bars etc in the misguided view that it will become a constant inflow of cash as well as the rent from the football club. Doesn't he also take a fairly large percentage of gate receipts & merchandise etc from Stayen ?
Yep, which he'd continue to do here if everyone renews season tickets and he still owns the ground. He has to completely go.
Holmes cost £142,000 in the summer according to the Coventry blokes, a very precise figure that. Jacko once played 5 goals on loan for City in 2003 and scored two goals, one against WBA and one against Chrystal Paralarsesis.
I'm afraid my excitement at the possibility of long hoped for new ownership is outweighed by concern at the prospect of RD retaining The Valley. Surely we don't trust him enough for that unless any sale includes a more or less permanent lease-back of the ground on terms that won't place substantial risk on the club's finances. Otherwise we could soon be heading back to the 80s. And there's no guarantee that we could return a second time. I just hope these Aussies know what they could be getting into.
Comments
I would guess they are just rounding off the legal and money bits (maybe the accountant in the cupboard was true after all?), and putting together the final date for it all to happen.
Not much said that we didnt know already.
Nice comments from Brazil.... 'Great club Charlton, with great traditions and history'
the72.co.uk/78863/involved-australian-consortium-trying-buy-charlton/
'We can now confirm that the Australian Football Consortium LTD have no intention of purchasing The Valley, the spiritual home and holy ground of the Addicks, and will remain under Duchatelet ownership.'
However I have often wondered "What comes next after Duchatelet?" "Who exactly will buy our club?" my fears have always been that Duchatelet will redevelop the ground to get money back, why not he's a business man with absolutely no affiliation to the club, money is his god. So I have been hoping for someone to come in and take the club out of this arseholes grip and push us forwards.
This deal if real would appear to be less than edifying as we will not be rid of Duchatelet he will be the bloody landlord and you can bet your last penny he won't be happy with a pepper corn rent as he well knows the value of the real estate that constitutes The Valley. Given this scenario potentially any consortium will struggle to pay the rent and have funds to build a team if I was a conspiracy theorist (which I am definitely not) I would start to think this was Duchatelet's way of doing exactly what he planned all along i.e. the redevelopment of The Valley.
We should not trust him and this deal to me looks like a means to abdicate costs of the team and cash in on the value of the ground. Getting rid of this man should be a priority but all I caution is be careful what you wish for, because in reality if he still owns the ground, well we haven't got rid of at all.
So, I am now worried that indeed he is trying to set up what we should now call the Stayen Model.
But why any sensible business people would pay significant money for the club without the Valley, when they know RD paid £14m just 3 years ago for the whole thing, and since then he has devalued the playing assets, and greatly reduced the prospect of FAPL revenue, is completely beyond me.
At least the valley would be owned and protected by Charlton people.
He probably has to adhere to a confidentiality agreement.....which would no doubt be imposed by our lot.
I hope I'm just being paranoid mate, I really do, However, I agree with Prague, why are they paying this much for what is left? Without the biggest asset in The valley being included.
It's like they are just buying the franchise of the club! Which is right up their street.
A club, even better in London, for their ex pat market. In a ground that the landlord may have bars and restaurants included. Like a "walkabout" for example.
They won't really annoy the locals as there ain't many left these days!
This feeder team bit also irks me. Feeder for who? They don't own any players, or other clubs. Unless they have plans for somehow getting A league players (which most would struggle in league 2, let alone league 1 or the championship)
away from their clubs.
What my fears are is that this talk of share options further down the line and such is that these won't be targeted back home, more likely at an Aussie market.
Aussie sponsor's and a total rebranding of anything Charlton.
Now I know that the football league will not allow this to completely happen with name changes and the like, but where will it be allowed to stop is my concern.
I really do hope I've got it completely wrong, I must say but I've seen these sort of things happen over here. Even tonight it was on the news that the Western Force rugby union franchise may go or the Melbourne rebels as the league has got to be cut down!
What happens to the fans of these team? It drives me right up the wall!
The other thing that will entice the Aussie soccer (football!) fans into pumping money into this franchise idea is the idea of getting one over on the poms in their own backyard.
Now this Aussie consortium hasn't said anything of the like, as far as I'm aware, even listening to that Mark Schwarzer interview earlier he said very very little.
So I shouldn't jump the gun I know, but it's who's looking out for Charlton's interest that is my concern?
Roland Duchatelat........
Like I say, I hope I'm wrong
Jacko once played 5 goals on loan for City in 2003 and scored two goals, one against WBA and one against Chrystal Paralarsesis.