Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The Jimmy Seed Stand - Roland's Legacy?
Comments
-
The JS already produces a good atmosphere in its current design. 10k capacity that still allowed for expansion of the East, and by all means put flats or a hotel at the back. Shame that's not what they are likely to do.
I wouldn't bet on anything but the vibe I got from the q&a was the opposite, that it's not under serious consideration.
They also don't seem to be able to do more than one thing at a time and run a football club, so the training ground is the project for now.2 -
Permanently reduce the capacity of the ground to improve the atmosphere - I wonder why other clubs haven't thought of that?newyorkaddick said:
Why?SoundAsa£ said:
Possibly the worst idea since on a balmy August evening in 1888 in the village of Braunauam am Inn Austria, school teacher Alois Hitler turned to his wife Klara and said......"Fancy an early night luv?"newyorkaddick said:I am indifferent about this potential development but there is a case for reducing The Valley's capacity to improve the atmosphere and (eventually) create excess demand for tickets.
At 27k our capacity is larger than seven current top flight clubs, and moreover if we got back there someday the TV money completely overwhelms the opportunity cost of selling a few thousand more tickets. In the meantime say 20k is perfectly adequate.
If we built a new stadium from scratch it wouldn't be 27k capacity.
Do you not think every one of the current PL clubs with lower capacities than ours would prefer a larger one, regardless of the TV income? Are we giving up now on ever getting back there?
The Jimmy Seed Stand is the only part of the ground with potential for significant expansion. Limiting that forever by parcelling up the land into long residential leases to pay for Naby Sarr, Loic Nego and Polish Pete must be about the daftest idea since 1985.
And moving to a stadium with a lower capacity is the second stupidest, since that too would be all about money to pay for Duchatalet's incompetence.55 -
There is no prospect of us filling a 27k stadium in L1 or the Championship - I'm not sure we'd fill it in the Premiership either except for a few fixtures. We can't even fill it for Football for a Fiver games any longer.Airman Brown said:
Permanently reduce the capacity of the ground to improve the atmosphere - I wonder why other clubs haven't thought of that?newyorkaddick said:
Why?SoundAsa£ said:
Possibly the worst idea since on a balmy August evening in 1888 in the village of Braunauam am Inn Austria, school teacher Alois Hitler turned to his wife Klara and said......"Fancy an early night luv?"newyorkaddick said:I am indifferent about this potential development but there is a case for reducing The Valley's capacity to improve the atmosphere and (eventually) create excess demand for tickets.
At 27k our capacity is larger than seven current top flight clubs, and moreover if we got back there someday the TV money completely overwhelms the opportunity cost of selling a few thousand more tickets. In the meantime say 20k is perfectly adequate.
If we built a new stadium from scratch it wouldn't be 27k capacity.
Do you not think every one of the current PL clubs with lower capacities than ours would prefer a larger one, regardless of the TV income? Are we giving up now on ever getting back there?
The Jimmy Seed Stand is the only part of the ground with potential for significant expansion. Limiting that forever by parcelling up the land into long residential leases to pay for Naby Sarr, Loic Nego and Polish Pete must be about the daftest idea since 1985.
And moving to a stadium with a lower capacity is the second stupidest, since that too would be all about money to pay for Duchatalet's incompetence.
If you ran a 500-room hotel which had gone from being sold out a decade ago to 30% occupancy wouldn't you contemplate converting some of the rooms to apartments?
I doubt there is sufficient land to make it very worthwhile to develop anyhow, but if there was a one-off opportunity to generate windfall profits from a near-empty rotting stand then you're being dogmatic to suggest it doesn't have even some merit.
2 -
False comparison, because a hotel in that situation would presumably be reacting to structural changes in its market.newyorkaddick said:
There is no prospect of us filling a 27k stadium in L1 or the Championship - I'm not sure we'd fill it in the Premiership either except for a few fixtures. We can't even fill it for Football for a Fiver games any longer.Airman Brown said:
Permanently reduce the capacity of the ground to improve the atmosphere - I wonder why other clubs haven't thought of that?newyorkaddick said:
Why?SoundAsa£ said:
Possibly the worst idea since on a balmy August evening in 1888 in the village of Braunauam am Inn Austria, school teacher Alois Hitler turned to his wife Klara and said......"Fancy an early night luv?"newyorkaddick said:I am indifferent about this potential development but there is a case for reducing The Valley's capacity to improve the atmosphere and (eventually) create excess demand for tickets.
At 27k our capacity is larger than seven current top flight clubs, and moreover if we got back there someday the TV money completely overwhelms the opportunity cost of selling a few thousand more tickets. In the meantime say 20k is perfectly adequate.
If we built a new stadium from scratch it wouldn't be 27k capacity.
Do you not think every one of the current PL clubs with lower capacities than ours would prefer a larger one, regardless of the TV income? Are we giving up now on ever getting back there?
The Jimmy Seed Stand is the only part of the ground with potential for significant expansion. Limiting that forever by parcelling up the land into long residential leases to pay for Naby Sarr, Loic Nego and Polish Pete must be about the daftest idea since 1985.
And moving to a stadium with a lower capacity is the second stupidest, since that too would be all about money to pay for Duchatalet's incompetence.
If you ran a 500-room hotel which had gone from being sold out a decade ago to 30% occupancy wouldn't you contemplate converting some of the rooms to apartments?
I doubt there is sufficient land to make it very worthwhile to develop anyhow, but if there was a one-off opportunity to generate windfall profits from a near-empty rotting stand then you're being dogmatic to suggest it doesn't have even some merit.
Charlton are in this position because it is badly run, not a change in the market. I can't see any evidence that we wouldn't require and utilise the present capacity if we were back in the Premier League, although there isn't much of a basis to draw conclusions either way. In my view, it will always be possible to sell out half the games and the other half are 20k plus with an opportunity to build further support.
The club has to allocate ten per cent of its capacity to away fans up to 3,000. If you think the police would be happy with 2,000-plus away fans in the east or west stands on a regular basis then you are very much mistaken. In fact, I reckon they would oppose a planning application which went down that route, which in effect would kill it.
Football for a Fiver isn't working for the same reason as everything else. Nobody believes in the ownership or its ability to deliver a successful football club.
This is similar to the argument being advanced in the early 1990s by one member of the board that we would never need more than 15,000 in future. How very wrong that was.
"Near-empty, rotting stand" [edit: misread that as "stadium" earlier] is an extraordinary description of The Valley which bears little relation even to the present reality.
Is it really time to give up and settle for failure? But you are right about one thing - I don't give a flying f*** about "windfall profits" that would go to compensate an idiot for his idiocy and critically undermine the future of The Valley. And BTW the first £7m would have to go to the old board anyway.23 -
I agree the club has obviously been mismanaged (since 2006 not just 2013) but it needs to be managed on a look-forward basis beginning where we currently find ourselves rather than on the basis of what we'd like it to be or even what it was during the go-go years in the early-2000s.Airman Brown said:
False comparison, because a hotel in that situation would presumably be reacting to structural changes in its market.newyorkaddick said:
There is no prospect of us filling a 27k stadium in L1 or the Championship - I'm not sure we'd fill it in the Premiership either except for a few fixtures. We can't even fill it for Football for a Fiver games any longer.Airman Brown said:
Permanently reduce the capacity of the ground to improve the atmosphere - I wonder why other clubs haven't thought of that?newyorkaddick said:
Why?SoundAsa£ said:
Possibly the worst idea since on a balmy August evening in 1888 in the village of Braunauam am Inn Austria, school teacher Alois Hitler turned to his wife Klara and said......"Fancy an early night luv?"newyorkaddick said:I am indifferent about this potential development but there is a case for reducing The Valley's capacity to improve the atmosphere and (eventually) create excess demand for tickets.
At 27k our capacity is larger than seven current top flight clubs, and moreover if we got back there someday the TV money completely overwhelms the opportunity cost of selling a few thousand more tickets. In the meantime say 20k is perfectly adequate.
If we built a new stadium from scratch it wouldn't be 27k capacity.
Do you not think every one of the current PL clubs with lower capacities than ours would prefer a larger one, regardless of the TV income? Are we giving up now on ever getting back there?
The Jimmy Seed Stand is the only part of the ground with potential for significant expansion. Limiting that forever by parcelling up the land into long residential leases to pay for Naby Sarr, Loic Nego and Polish Pete must be about the daftest idea since 1985.
And moving to a stadium with a lower capacity is the second stupidest, since that too would be all about money to pay for Duchatalet's incompetence.
If you ran a 500-room hotel which had gone from being sold out a decade ago to 30% occupancy wouldn't you contemplate converting some of the rooms to apartments?
I doubt there is sufficient land to make it very worthwhile to develop anyhow, but if there was a one-off opportunity to generate windfall profits from a near-empty rotting stand then you're being dogmatic to suggest it doesn't have even some merit.
Charlton are in this position because it is badly run, not a change in the market. I can't see any evidence that we wouldn't require and utilise the present capacity if we were back in the Premier League, although there isn't much of a basis to draw conclusions either way. In my view, it will always be possible to sell out half the games and the other half are an opportunity to build further support.
The club has to allocate ten per cent of its capacity to away fans up to 3,000. If you think the police would be happy with 2,000-plus away fans in the east or west stands on a regular basis then you are very much mistaken. In fact, I reckon they would oppose a planning application which went down that route, which in effect would kill it.
Football for a Fiver isn't working for the same reason as everything else. Nobody believes in the ownership or its ability to deliver a successful football club.
This is similar to the argument being advanced in the early 1990s by one member of the board that we would never need more than 15,000 in future. How very wrong that was.
Is it really time to give up and settle for failure?
The argument that "Permanently reduce the capacity of the ground to improve the atmosphere - I wonder why other clubs haven't thought of that?" ignores the fact most other clubs don't have occupancy rates as low as ours.
You would have a much better idea than me how much of the lost support in the past decade is gone for good but I suspect it's more than people appreciate. I can speak from experience even as a relatively committed fan that once you get used to doing (and enjoying) other stuff at the weekend, it's actually not that hard to give up going regularly.
Anyhow again I suspect it's all moot anyhow as the land isn't sufficient to do much with but in the highly unlikely event it could be developed very profitably (whilst retaining options on re-expanding the stadium at a later date), I don't see how we could ignore the possibility that it might be in the club's interests.0 -
I don't have a problem with a hotel and a couple of apartments being involved with a development of that end of the ground. They would have to be owned by the club and run for the benefit of the club. They could be used by the away team on a long distance trip, fans, or even our own players or staff who have moved from elsewhere and haven't got somewhere yet. Any profit goes to the club.
However they cannot be the main focus of the development. First and foremost the development must be about improving the ground. The building of a hotel/apartments must not prevent further expansion. We may one day need to fill the corners or add a second tier. This should not be prevented by a secondary pointless development.7 -
We sold out the stadium in L1 not that long ago. And the match result was meaningless. Mind you, we did see a trophy presented.newyorkaddick said:
There is no prospect of us filling a 27k stadium in L1 or the Championship - I'm not sure we'd fill it in the Premiership either except for a few fixtures. We can't even fill it for Football for a Fiver games any longer.Airman Brown said:
Permanently reduce the capacity of the ground to improve the atmosphere - I wonder why other clubs haven't thought of that?newyorkaddick said:
Why?SoundAsa£ said:
Possibly the worst idea since on a balmy August evening in 1888 in the village of Braunauam am Inn Austria, school teacher Alois Hitler turned to his wife Klara and said......"Fancy an early night luv?"newyorkaddick said:I am indifferent about this potential development but there is a case for reducing The Valley's capacity to improve the atmosphere and (eventually) create excess demand for tickets.
At 27k our capacity is larger than seven current top flight clubs, and moreover if we got back there someday the TV money completely overwhelms the opportunity cost of selling a few thousand more tickets. In the meantime say 20k is perfectly adequate.
If we built a new stadium from scratch it wouldn't be 27k capacity.
Do you not think every one of the current PL clubs with lower capacities than ours would prefer a larger one, regardless of the TV income? Are we giving up now on ever getting back there?
The Jimmy Seed Stand is the only part of the ground with potential for significant expansion. Limiting that forever by parcelling up the land into long residential leases to pay for Naby Sarr, Loic Nego and Polish Pete must be about the daftest idea since 1985.
And moving to a stadium with a lower capacity is the second stupidest, since that too would be all about money to pay for Duchatalet's incompetence.
If you ran a 500-room hotel which had gone from being sold out a decade ago to 30% occupancy wouldn't you contemplate converting some of the rooms to apartments?
I doubt there is sufficient land to make it very worthwhile to develop anyhow, but if there was a one-off opportunity to generate windfall profits from a near-empty rotting stand then you're being dogmatic to suggest it doesn't have even some merit.7 -
And a lot of Smurfs.0
-
The tickets were heavily discounted...Weegie Addick said:
We sold out the stadium in L1 not that long ago. And the match result was meaningless. Mind you, we did see a trophy presented.newyorkaddick said:
There is no prospect of us filling a 27k stadium in L1 or the Championship - I'm not sure we'd fill it in the Premiership either except for a few fixtures. We can't even fill it for Football for a Fiver games any longer.Airman Brown said:
Permanently reduce the capacity of the ground to improve the atmosphere - I wonder why other clubs haven't thought of that?newyorkaddick said:
Why?SoundAsa£ said:
Possibly the worst idea since on a balmy August evening in 1888 in the village of Braunauam am Inn Austria, school teacher Alois Hitler turned to his wife Klara and said......"Fancy an early night luv?"newyorkaddick said:I am indifferent about this potential development but there is a case for reducing The Valley's capacity to improve the atmosphere and (eventually) create excess demand for tickets.
At 27k our capacity is larger than seven current top flight clubs, and moreover if we got back there someday the TV money completely overwhelms the opportunity cost of selling a few thousand more tickets. In the meantime say 20k is perfectly adequate.
If we built a new stadium from scratch it wouldn't be 27k capacity.
Do you not think every one of the current PL clubs with lower capacities than ours would prefer a larger one, regardless of the TV income? Are we giving up now on ever getting back there?
The Jimmy Seed Stand is the only part of the ground with potential for significant expansion. Limiting that forever by parcelling up the land into long residential leases to pay for Naby Sarr, Loic Nego and Polish Pete must be about the daftest idea since 1985.
And moving to a stadium with a lower capacity is the second stupidest, since that too would be all about money to pay for Duchatalet's incompetence.
If you ran a 500-room hotel which had gone from being sold out a decade ago to 30% occupancy wouldn't you contemplate converting some of the rooms to apartments?
I doubt there is sufficient land to make it very worthwhile to develop anyhow, but if there was a one-off opportunity to generate windfall profits from a near-empty rotting stand then you're being dogmatic to suggest it doesn't have even some merit.0 -
But it was still sold out, the demand was still there, and if we got back to the premier league, we'd sell out again, because the demand would be there. Any developments that happen at Charlton should be the addition of more corporate boxes, as this is something we severely lack in compared to other grounds, and the filling in and redesign of the South corners and the JS. The capacity shouldn't be reduced in any way, in fact it should be increased, long term, if we climb the leagues again. A hotel would be the only realistic development that would work in my opinion, there's no need for shops as there's retail parks very close by, and residential buildings are not a wise move, as I don't think the location would help the property prices at allnewyorkaddick said:
The tickets were heavily discounted...Weegie Addick said:
We sold out the stadium in L1 not that long ago. And the match result was meaningless. Mind you, we did see a trophy presented.newyorkaddick said:
There is no prospect of us filling a 27k stadium in L1 or the Championship - I'm not sure we'd fill it in the Premiership either except for a few fixtures. We can't even fill it for Football for a Fiver games any longer.Airman Brown said:
Permanently reduce the capacity of the ground to improve the atmosphere - I wonder why other clubs haven't thought of that?newyorkaddick said:
Why?SoundAsa£ said:
Possibly the worst idea since on a balmy August evening in 1888 in the village of Braunauam am Inn Austria, school teacher Alois Hitler turned to his wife Klara and said......"Fancy an early night luv?"newyorkaddick said:I am indifferent about this potential development but there is a case for reducing The Valley's capacity to improve the atmosphere and (eventually) create excess demand for tickets.
At 27k our capacity is larger than seven current top flight clubs, and moreover if we got back there someday the TV money completely overwhelms the opportunity cost of selling a few thousand more tickets. In the meantime say 20k is perfectly adequate.
If we built a new stadium from scratch it wouldn't be 27k capacity.
Do you not think every one of the current PL clubs with lower capacities than ours would prefer a larger one, regardless of the TV income? Are we giving up now on ever getting back there?
The Jimmy Seed Stand is the only part of the ground with potential for significant expansion. Limiting that forever by parcelling up the land into long residential leases to pay for Naby Sarr, Loic Nego and Polish Pete must be about the daftest idea since 1985.
And moving to a stadium with a lower capacity is the second stupidest, since that too would be all about money to pay for Duchatalet's incompetence.
If you ran a 500-room hotel which had gone from being sold out a decade ago to 30% occupancy wouldn't you contemplate converting some of the rooms to apartments?
I doubt there is sufficient land to make it very worthwhile to develop anyhow, but if there was a one-off opportunity to generate windfall profits from a near-empty rotting stand then you're being dogmatic to suggest it doesn't have even some merit.4 -
Sponsored links:
-
Last time we were in the championship chasing a play-off spot we regularly sold out the home areas. There is no reason this couldn't happen again and to suggest we'd never need more than a certain lower number of seats smacks of Bill Gates proclaiming nobody will ever need more than 640Kb.
And the point about selling out in L1 was purely down to ticket discount is bizarre. Are you suggesting we'll never discount tickets again? Obviously not, so are you suggesting that at no stage in the future will a discount produce a full stadium?
If new owners came in tomorrow and we were top 10 championship in 2 years time then we'd sell out enough games at 27k to not only disregard any thoughts of downsizing, but to be once again considering expansion if we made it to the prem.0 -
you wouldn't get a ticket for love nor money if we were back in the prem, we sold out before and would do so again week in week out as long as reasonably priced.newyorkaddick said:
There is no prospect of us filling a 27k stadium in L1 or the Championship - I'm not sure we'd fill it in the Premiership either except for a few fixtures. We can't even fill it for Football for a Fiver games any longer.Airman Brown said:
Permanently reduce the capacity of the ground to improve the atmosphere - I wonder why other clubs haven't thought of that?newyorkaddick said:
Why?SoundAsa£ said:
Possibly the worst idea since on a balmy August evening in 1888 in the village of Braunauam am Inn Austria, school teacher Alois Hitler turned to his wife Klara and said......"Fancy an early night luv?"newyorkaddick said:I am indifferent about this potential development but there is a case for reducing The Valley's capacity to improve the atmosphere and (eventually) create excess demand for tickets.
At 27k our capacity is larger than seven current top flight clubs, and moreover if we got back there someday the TV money completely overwhelms the opportunity cost of selling a few thousand more tickets. In the meantime say 20k is perfectly adequate.
If we built a new stadium from scratch it wouldn't be 27k capacity.
Do you not think every one of the current PL clubs with lower capacities than ours would prefer a larger one, regardless of the TV income? Are we giving up now on ever getting back there?
The Jimmy Seed Stand is the only part of the ground with potential for significant expansion. Limiting that forever by parcelling up the land into long residential leases to pay for Naby Sarr, Loic Nego and Polish Pete must be about the daftest idea since 1985.
And moving to a stadium with a lower capacity is the second stupidest, since that too would be all about money to pay for Duchatalet's incompetence.
If you ran a 500-room hotel which had gone from being sold out a decade ago to 30% occupancy wouldn't you contemplate converting some of the rooms to apartments?
I doubt there is sufficient land to make it very worthwhile to develop anyhow, but if there was a one-off opportunity to generate windfall profits from a near-empty rotting stand then you're being dogmatic to suggest it doesn't have even some merit.3 -
I'm sure a similar argument could once have been made at Burnley, Hull, Watford, Bournemouth and Stoke, to name but a few. Bournemouth's average crowd in 2000/01 was 4,403. Hull's was 6,684. West Brom's was 11,993 in the second tier - about the same as ours now in L1.newyorkaddick said:
I agree the club has obviously been mismanaged (since 2006 not just 2013) but it needs to be managed on a look-forward basis beginning where we currently find ourselves rather than on the basis of what we'd like it to be or even what it was during the go-go years in the early-2000s.Airman Brown said:
False comparison, because a hotel in that situation would presumably be reacting to structural changes in its market.newyorkaddick said:
There is no prospect of us filling a 27k stadium in L1 or the Championship - I'm not sure we'd fill it in the Premiership either except for a few fixtures. We can't even fill it for Football for a Fiver games any longer.Airman Brown said:
Permanently reduce the capacity of the ground to improve the atmosphere - I wonder why other clubs haven't thought of that?newyorkaddick said:
Why?SoundAsa£ said:
Possibly the worst idea since on a balmy August evening in 1888 in the village of Braunauam am Inn Austria, school teacher Alois Hitler turned to his wife Klara and said......"Fancy an early night luv?"newyorkaddick said:I am indifferent about this potential development but there is a case for reducing The Valley's capacity to improve the atmosphere and (eventually) create excess demand for tickets.
At 27k our capacity is larger than seven current top flight clubs, and moreover if we got back there someday the TV money completely overwhelms the opportunity cost of selling a few thousand more tickets. In the meantime say 20k is perfectly adequate.
If we built a new stadium from scratch it wouldn't be 27k capacity.
Do you not think every one of the current PL clubs with lower capacities than ours would prefer a larger one, regardless of the TV income? Are we giving up now on ever getting back there?
The Jimmy Seed Stand is the only part of the ground with potential for significant expansion. Limiting that forever by parcelling up the land into long residential leases to pay for Naby Sarr, Loic Nego and Polish Pete must be about the daftest idea since 1985.
And moving to a stadium with a lower capacity is the second stupidest, since that too would be all about money to pay for Duchatalet's incompetence.
If you ran a 500-room hotel which had gone from being sold out a decade ago to 30% occupancy wouldn't you contemplate converting some of the rooms to apartments?
I doubt there is sufficient land to make it very worthwhile to develop anyhow, but if there was a one-off opportunity to generate windfall profits from a near-empty rotting stand then you're being dogmatic to suggest it doesn't have even some merit.
Charlton are in this position because it is badly run, not a change in the market. I can't see any evidence that we wouldn't require and utilise the present capacity if we were back in the Premier League, although there isn't much of a basis to draw conclusions either way. In my view, it will always be possible to sell out half the games and the other half are an opportunity to build further support.
The club has to allocate ten per cent of its capacity to away fans up to 3,000. If you think the police would be happy with 2,000-plus away fans in the east or west stands on a regular basis then you are very much mistaken. In fact, I reckon they would oppose a planning application which went down that route, which in effect would kill it.
Football for a Fiver isn't working for the same reason as everything else. Nobody believes in the ownership or its ability to deliver a successful football club.
This is similar to the argument being advanced in the early 1990s by one member of the board that we would never need more than 15,000 in future. How very wrong that was.
Is it really time to give up and settle for failure?
The argument that "Permanently reduce the capacity of the ground to improve the atmosphere - I wonder why other clubs haven't thought of that?" ignores the fact most other clubs don't have occupancy rates as low as ours.
You would have a much better idea than me how much of the lost support in the past decade is gone for good but I suspect it's more than people appreciate. I can speak from experience even as a relatively committed fan that once you get used to doing (and enjoying) other stuff at the weekend, it's actually not that hard to give up going regularly.
Anyhow again I suspect it's all moot anyhow as the land isn't sufficient to do much with but in the highly unlikely event it could be developed very profitably (whilst retaining options on re-expanding the stadium at a later date), I don't see how we could ignore the possibility that it might be in the club's interests.
The occupancy rate at The Valley has plummeted in one season. I agree about the massive damage being done, but I don't think it is impossible to recover in the medium to long term. Some fans will never come back, but others can be attracted over time. That's what we did in the 1990s. It's London, not Grimsby (i.e. the population provides much more scope).
You specifically highlighted reducing capacity, which is my particular disagreement. The original plans to develop that end and the quadrant included a very limited residential component, which the council fiercely resisted, in the south-east corner. These plans are scuppered now by the sale and development of 2 Landsdowne Mews. It would be difficult to build any significant vehicle access without demolishing Sam Bartram Close, which was in the previous plan, and is likely beyond the scope of anything that might happen under this ownership.
As for the club being mismanaged from 2006, I can see the case around that but it is a category error to place it alongside what has happened since 2014. At least between 2006 and 2014, the priority was to be successful on the pitch and the fans could see that. Bad decisions were made, but at least Murray had earned the right to make his share of them. They weren't of the order of this administration, where incompetence is its modus operandi.7 -
I'm not convinced - the club had ridden a decade long wave of positive momentum (beginning with the return to the area) under a well-respected manager and a fan-led Board. The attendances this season (the real ones not the published ones) have been really shocking and again there's a risk of overestimating their prospect of returning especially if new owners are not exciting.Elthamaddick said:
you wouldn't get a ticket for love nor money if we were back in the prem, we sold out before and would do so again week in week out as long as reasonably priced.newyorkaddick said:
There is no prospect of us filling a 27k stadium in L1 or the Championship - I'm not sure we'd fill it in the Premiership either except for a few fixtures. We can't even fill it for Football for a Fiver games any longer.Airman Brown said:
Permanently reduce the capacity of the ground to improve the atmosphere - I wonder why other clubs haven't thought of that?newyorkaddick said:
Why?SoundAsa£ said:
Possibly the worst idea since on a balmy August evening in 1888 in the village of Braunauam am Inn Austria, school teacher Alois Hitler turned to his wife Klara and said......"Fancy an early night luv?"newyorkaddick said:I am indifferent about this potential development but there is a case for reducing The Valley's capacity to improve the atmosphere and (eventually) create excess demand for tickets.
At 27k our capacity is larger than seven current top flight clubs, and moreover if we got back there someday the TV money completely overwhelms the opportunity cost of selling a few thousand more tickets. In the meantime say 20k is perfectly adequate.
If we built a new stadium from scratch it wouldn't be 27k capacity.
Do you not think every one of the current PL clubs with lower capacities than ours would prefer a larger one, regardless of the TV income? Are we giving up now on ever getting back there?
The Jimmy Seed Stand is the only part of the ground with potential for significant expansion. Limiting that forever by parcelling up the land into long residential leases to pay for Naby Sarr, Loic Nego and Polish Pete must be about the daftest idea since 1985.
And moving to a stadium with a lower capacity is the second stupidest, since that too would be all about money to pay for Duchatalet's incompetence.
If you ran a 500-room hotel which had gone from being sold out a decade ago to 30% occupancy wouldn't you contemplate converting some of the rooms to apartments?
I doubt there is sufficient land to make it very worthwhile to develop anyhow, but if there was a one-off opportunity to generate windfall profits from a near-empty rotting stand then you're being dogmatic to suggest it doesn't have even some merit.
It was also an easy place for occasional fans/tourists to get Premier League tickets in those days - however since then each of London's big four clubs have or will have added approx. 80,000 more seats to their stadiums, and there are tons of tickets available either directly or via the secondary market.2 -
For a price, certainly at three of them, which not everyone is willing to pay. I think you have a point in terms of expanding (home) capacity, but not reducing it - certainly the club would always like to have been able to accommodate more away fans and I don't see why that would have changed.newyorkaddick said:
I'm not convinced - the club had ridden a decade long wave of positive momentum (beginning with the return to the area) under a well-respected manager and a fan-led Board. The attendances this season (the real ones not the published ones) have been really shocking and again there's a risk of overestimating their prospect of returning especially if new owners are not exciting.Elthamaddick said:
you wouldn't get a ticket for love nor money if we were back in the prem, we sold out before and would do so again week in week out as long as reasonably priced.newyorkaddick said:
There is no prospect of us filling a 27k stadium in L1 or the Championship - I'm not sure we'd fill it in the Premiership either except for a few fixtures. We can't even fill it for Football for a Fiver games any longer.Airman Brown said:
Permanently reduce the capacity of the ground to improve the atmosphere - I wonder why other clubs haven't thought of that?newyorkaddick said:
Why?SoundAsa£ said:
Possibly the worst idea since on a balmy August evening in 1888 in the village of Braunauam am Inn Austria, school teacher Alois Hitler turned to his wife Klara and said......"Fancy an early night luv?"newyorkaddick said:I am indifferent about this potential development but there is a case for reducing The Valley's capacity to improve the atmosphere and (eventually) create excess demand for tickets.
At 27k our capacity is larger than seven current top flight clubs, and moreover if we got back there someday the TV money completely overwhelms the opportunity cost of selling a few thousand more tickets. In the meantime say 20k is perfectly adequate.
If we built a new stadium from scratch it wouldn't be 27k capacity.
Do you not think every one of the current PL clubs with lower capacities than ours would prefer a larger one, regardless of the TV income? Are we giving up now on ever getting back there?
The Jimmy Seed Stand is the only part of the ground with potential for significant expansion. Limiting that forever by parcelling up the land into long residential leases to pay for Naby Sarr, Loic Nego and Polish Pete must be about the daftest idea since 1985.
And moving to a stadium with a lower capacity is the second stupidest, since that too would be all about money to pay for Duchatalet's incompetence.
If you ran a 500-room hotel which had gone from being sold out a decade ago to 30% occupancy wouldn't you contemplate converting some of the rooms to apartments?
I doubt there is sufficient land to make it very worthwhile to develop anyhow, but if there was a one-off opportunity to generate windfall profits from a near-empty rotting stand then you're being dogmatic to suggest it doesn't have even some merit.
It was also an easy place for occasional fans/tourists to get Premier League tickets in those days - however since then each of London's big four clubs have or will have added approx. 80,000 more seats to their stadiums, and there are tons of tickets available either directly or via the secondary market.0 -
The problem is that for the timebeing the size of the stadium creates a vicious circle whereby low crowds leads to lack of atmosphere which discourages others from attending and also potentially impacts performances too, further leading to low crowds etc. etc. etc.Airman Brown said:
For a price, certainly at three of them, which not everyone is willing to pay. I think you have a point in terms of expanding (home) capacity, but not reducing it - certainly the club would always like to have been able to accommodate more away fans and I don't see why that would have changed.newyorkaddick said:
I'm not convinced - the club had ridden a decade long wave of positive momentum (beginning with the return to the area) under a well-respected manager and a fan-led Board. The attendances this season (the real ones not the published ones) have been really shocking and again there's a risk of overestimating their prospect of returning especially if new owners are not exciting.Elthamaddick said:
you wouldn't get a ticket for love nor money if we were back in the prem, we sold out before and would do so again week in week out as long as reasonably priced.newyorkaddick said:
There is no prospect of us filling a 27k stadium in L1 or the Championship - I'm not sure we'd fill it in the Premiership either except for a few fixtures. We can't even fill it for Football for a Fiver games any longer.Airman Brown said:
Permanently reduce the capacity of the ground to improve the atmosphere - I wonder why other clubs haven't thought of that?newyorkaddick said:
Why?SoundAsa£ said:
Possibly the worst idea since on a balmy August evening in 1888 in the village of Braunauam am Inn Austria, school teacher Alois Hitler turned to his wife Klara and said......"Fancy an early night luv?"newyorkaddick said:I am indifferent about this potential development but there is a case for reducing The Valley's capacity to improve the atmosphere and (eventually) create excess demand for tickets.
At 27k our capacity is larger than seven current top flight clubs, and moreover if we got back there someday the TV money completely overwhelms the opportunity cost of selling a few thousand more tickets. In the meantime say 20k is perfectly adequate.
If we built a new stadium from scratch it wouldn't be 27k capacity.
Do you not think every one of the current PL clubs with lower capacities than ours would prefer a larger one, regardless of the TV income? Are we giving up now on ever getting back there?
The Jimmy Seed Stand is the only part of the ground with potential for significant expansion. Limiting that forever by parcelling up the land into long residential leases to pay for Naby Sarr, Loic Nego and Polish Pete must be about the daftest idea since 1985.
And moving to a stadium with a lower capacity is the second stupidest, since that too would be all about money to pay for Duchatalet's incompetence.
If you ran a 500-room hotel which had gone from being sold out a decade ago to 30% occupancy wouldn't you contemplate converting some of the rooms to apartments?
I doubt there is sufficient land to make it very worthwhile to develop anyhow, but if there was a one-off opportunity to generate windfall profits from a near-empty rotting stand then you're being dogmatic to suggest it doesn't have even some merit.
It was also an easy place for occasional fans/tourists to get Premier League tickets in those days - however since then each of London's big four clubs have or will have added approx. 80,000 more seats to their stadiums, and there are tons of tickets available either directly or via the secondary market.0 -
Disagree. When the team is playing well the atmosphere can still be good.newyorkaddick said:
The problem is that for the timebeing the size of the stadium creates a vicious circle whereby low crowds leads to lack of atmosphere which discourages others from attending and also potentially impacts performances too, further leading to low crowds etc. etc. etc.Airman Brown said:
For a price, certainly at three of them, which not everyone is willing to pay. I think you have a point in terms of expanding (home) capacity, but not reducing it - certainly the club would always like to have been able to accommodate more away fans and I don't see why that would have changed.newyorkaddick said:
I'm not convinced - the club had ridden a decade long wave of positive momentum (beginning with the return to the area) under a well-respected manager and a fan-led Board. The attendances this season (the real ones not the published ones) have been really shocking and again there's a risk of overestimating their prospect of returning especially if new owners are not exciting.Elthamaddick said:
you wouldn't get a ticket for love nor money if we were back in the prem, we sold out before and would do so again week in week out as long as reasonably priced.newyorkaddick said:
There is no prospect of us filling a 27k stadium in L1 or the Championship - I'm not sure we'd fill it in the Premiership either except for a few fixtures. We can't even fill it for Football for a Fiver games any longer.Airman Brown said:
Permanently reduce the capacity of the ground to improve the atmosphere - I wonder why other clubs haven't thought of that?newyorkaddick said:
Why?SoundAsa£ said:
Possibly the worst idea since on a balmy August evening in 1888 in the village of Braunauam am Inn Austria, school teacher Alois Hitler turned to his wife Klara and said......"Fancy an early night luv?"newyorkaddick said:I am indifferent about this potential development but there is a case for reducing The Valley's capacity to improve the atmosphere and (eventually) create excess demand for tickets.
At 27k our capacity is larger than seven current top flight clubs, and moreover if we got back there someday the TV money completely overwhelms the opportunity cost of selling a few thousand more tickets. In the meantime say 20k is perfectly adequate.
If we built a new stadium from scratch it wouldn't be 27k capacity.
Do you not think every one of the current PL clubs with lower capacities than ours would prefer a larger one, regardless of the TV income? Are we giving up now on ever getting back there?
The Jimmy Seed Stand is the only part of the ground with potential for significant expansion. Limiting that forever by parcelling up the land into long residential leases to pay for Naby Sarr, Loic Nego and Polish Pete must be about the daftest idea since 1985.
And moving to a stadium with a lower capacity is the second stupidest, since that too would be all about money to pay for Duchatalet's incompetence.
If you ran a 500-room hotel which had gone from being sold out a decade ago to 30% occupancy wouldn't you contemplate converting some of the rooms to apartments?
I doubt there is sufficient land to make it very worthwhile to develop anyhow, but if there was a one-off opportunity to generate windfall profits from a near-empty rotting stand then you're being dogmatic to suggest it doesn't have even some merit.
It was also an easy place for occasional fans/tourists to get Premier League tickets in those days - however since then each of London's big four clubs have or will have added approx. 80,000 more seats to their stadiums, and there are tons of tickets available either directly or via the secondary market.
The Valley has never really a cauldron of noise at the best of times.
And crowd noise has little if anything to do with performances otherwise Leeds would win the premier league every year.6 -
I've generally found the atmosphere at The Valley to be above average (when full/near full) compared to other similar stadiums - ironically it might be even better if the two corners were filled in with something!Henry Irving said:
Disagree. When the team is playing well the atmosphere can still be good.newyorkaddick said:
The problem is that for the timebeing the size of the stadium creates a vicious circle whereby low crowds leads to lack of atmosphere which discourages others from attending and also potentially impacts performances too, further leading to low crowds etc. etc. etc.Airman Brown said:
For a price, certainly at three of them, which not everyone is willing to pay. I think you have a point in terms of expanding (home) capacity, but not reducing it - certainly the club would always like to have been able to accommodate more away fans and I don't see why that would have changed.newyorkaddick said:
I'm not convinced - the club had ridden a decade long wave of positive momentum (beginning with the return to the area) under a well-respected manager and a fan-led Board. The attendances this season (the real ones not the published ones) have been really shocking and again there's a risk of overestimating their prospect of returning especially if new owners are not exciting.Elthamaddick said:
you wouldn't get a ticket for love nor money if we were back in the prem, we sold out before and would do so again week in week out as long as reasonably priced.newyorkaddick said:
There is no prospect of us filling a 27k stadium in L1 or the Championship - I'm not sure we'd fill it in the Premiership either except for a few fixtures. We can't even fill it for Football for a Fiver games any longer.Airman Brown said:
Permanently reduce the capacity of the ground to improve the atmosphere - I wonder why other clubs haven't thought of that?newyorkaddick said:
Why?SoundAsa£ said:
Possibly the worst idea since on a balmy August evening in 1888 in the village of Braunauam am Inn Austria, school teacher Alois Hitler turned to his wife Klara and said......"Fancy an early night luv?"newyorkaddick said:I am indifferent about this potential development but there is a case for reducing The Valley's capacity to improve the atmosphere and (eventually) create excess demand for tickets.
At 27k our capacity is larger than seven current top flight clubs, and moreover if we got back there someday the TV money completely overwhelms the opportunity cost of selling a few thousand more tickets. In the meantime say 20k is perfectly adequate.
If we built a new stadium from scratch it wouldn't be 27k capacity.
Do you not think every one of the current PL clubs with lower capacities than ours would prefer a larger one, regardless of the TV income? Are we giving up now on ever getting back there?
The Jimmy Seed Stand is the only part of the ground with potential for significant expansion. Limiting that forever by parcelling up the land into long residential leases to pay for Naby Sarr, Loic Nego and Polish Pete must be about the daftest idea since 1985.
And moving to a stadium with a lower capacity is the second stupidest, since that too would be all about money to pay for Duchatalet's incompetence.
If you ran a 500-room hotel which had gone from being sold out a decade ago to 30% occupancy wouldn't you contemplate converting some of the rooms to apartments?
I doubt there is sufficient land to make it very worthwhile to develop anyhow, but if there was a one-off opportunity to generate windfall profits from a near-empty rotting stand then you're being dogmatic to suggest it doesn't have even some merit.
It was also an easy place for occasional fans/tourists to get Premier League tickets in those days - however since then each of London's big four clubs have or will have added approx. 80,000 more seats to their stadiums, and there are tons of tickets available either directly or via the secondary market.
The Valley has never really a cauldron of noise at the best of times.
And crowd noise has little if anything to do with performances otherwise Leeds would win the premier league every year.0 -
Like seats?newyorkaddick said:
I've generally found the atmosphere at The Valley to be above average (when full/near full) compared to other similar stadiums - ironically it might be even better if the two corners were filled in with something!Henry Irving said:
Disagree. When the team is playing well the atmosphere can still be good.newyorkaddick said:
The problem is that for the timebeing the size of the stadium creates a vicious circle whereby low crowds leads to lack of atmosphere which discourages others from attending and also potentially impacts performances too, further leading to low crowds etc. etc. etc.Airman Brown said:
For a price, certainly at three of them, which not everyone is willing to pay. I think you have a point in terms of expanding (home) capacity, but not reducing it - certainly the club would always like to have been able to accommodate more away fans and I don't see why that would have changed.newyorkaddick said:
I'm not convinced - the club had ridden a decade long wave of positive momentum (beginning with the return to the area) under a well-respected manager and a fan-led Board. The attendances this season (the real ones not the published ones) have been really shocking and again there's a risk of overestimating their prospect of returning especially if new owners are not exciting.Elthamaddick said:
you wouldn't get a ticket for love nor money if we were back in the prem, we sold out before and would do so again week in week out as long as reasonably priced.newyorkaddick said:
There is no prospect of us filling a 27k stadium in L1 or the Championship - I'm not sure we'd fill it in the Premiership either except for a few fixtures. We can't even fill it for Football for a Fiver games any longer.Airman Brown said:
Permanently reduce the capacity of the ground to improve the atmosphere - I wonder why other clubs haven't thought of that?newyorkaddick said:
Why?SoundAsa£ said:
Possibly the worst idea since on a balmy August evening in 1888 in the village of Braunauam am Inn Austria, school teacher Alois Hitler turned to his wife Klara and said......"Fancy an early night luv?"newyorkaddick said:I am indifferent about this potential development but there is a case for reducing The Valley's capacity to improve the atmosphere and (eventually) create excess demand for tickets.
At 27k our capacity is larger than seven current top flight clubs, and moreover if we got back there someday the TV money completely overwhelms the opportunity cost of selling a few thousand more tickets. In the meantime say 20k is perfectly adequate.
If we built a new stadium from scratch it wouldn't be 27k capacity.
Do you not think every one of the current PL clubs with lower capacities than ours would prefer a larger one, regardless of the TV income? Are we giving up now on ever getting back there?
The Jimmy Seed Stand is the only part of the ground with potential for significant expansion. Limiting that forever by parcelling up the land into long residential leases to pay for Naby Sarr, Loic Nego and Polish Pete must be about the daftest idea since 1985.
And moving to a stadium with a lower capacity is the second stupidest, since that too would be all about money to pay for Duchatalet's incompetence.
If you ran a 500-room hotel which had gone from being sold out a decade ago to 30% occupancy wouldn't you contemplate converting some of the rooms to apartments?
I doubt there is sufficient land to make it very worthwhile to develop anyhow, but if there was a one-off opportunity to generate windfall profits from a near-empty rotting stand then you're being dogmatic to suggest it doesn't have even some merit.
It was also an easy place for occasional fans/tourists to get Premier League tickets in those days - however since then each of London's big four clubs have or will have added approx. 80,000 more seats to their stadiums, and there are tons of tickets available either directly or via the secondary market.
The Valley has never really a cauldron of noise at the best of times.
And crowd noise has little if anything to do with performances otherwise Leeds would win the premier league every year.4 -
It would be the cherry on a cake for uncle Roland to leave us with a complete turd of a redevelopment in the south of the ground before he finally departs. Nightmare.1
-
Sponsored links:
-
But he would never depart, once he builds something that provides a regular income we would never be rid of him even if he sells the club he will keep the ground.soapy_jones said:It would be the cherry on a cake for uncle Roland to leave us with a complete turd of a redevelopment in the south of the ground before he finally departs. Nightmare.
2 -
I was hoping he should die eventually. Unless he sleeps in a coffin AND feasts on the blood of third rate european footballers?charltonbob said:
But he would never depart, once he builds something that provides a regular income we would never be rid of him even if he sells the club he will keep the ground.soapy_jones said:It would be the cherry on a cake for uncle Roland to leave us with a complete turd of a redevelopment in the south of the ground before he finally departs. Nightmare.
1 -
£10 each if I remember rightly. And sold out well in advance. In fact, I think @Airman Brown even got a telling off from the owners at the time for selling them too cheaply!newyorkaddick said:
The tickets were heavily discounted...Weegie Addick said:
We sold out the stadium in L1 not that long ago. And the match result was meaningless. Mind you, we did see a trophy presented.newyorkaddick said:
There is no prospect of us filling a 27k stadium in L1 or the Championship - I'm not sure we'd fill it in the Premiership either except for a few fixtures. We can't even fill it for Football for a Fiver games any longer.Airman Brown said:
Permanently reduce the capacity of the ground to improve the atmosphere - I wonder why other clubs haven't thought of that?newyorkaddick said:
Why?SoundAsa£ said:
Possibly the worst idea since on a balmy August evening in 1888 in the village of Braunauam am Inn Austria, school teacher Alois Hitler turned to his wife Klara and said......"Fancy an early night luv?"newyorkaddick said:I am indifferent about this potential development but there is a case for reducing The Valley's capacity to improve the atmosphere and (eventually) create excess demand for tickets.
At 27k our capacity is larger than seven current top flight clubs, and moreover if we got back there someday the TV money completely overwhelms the opportunity cost of selling a few thousand more tickets. In the meantime say 20k is perfectly adequate.
If we built a new stadium from scratch it wouldn't be 27k capacity.
Do you not think every one of the current PL clubs with lower capacities than ours would prefer a larger one, regardless of the TV income? Are we giving up now on ever getting back there?
The Jimmy Seed Stand is the only part of the ground with potential for significant expansion. Limiting that forever by parcelling up the land into long residential leases to pay for Naby Sarr, Loic Nego and Polish Pete must be about the daftest idea since 1985.
And moving to a stadium with a lower capacity is the second stupidest, since that too would be all about money to pay for Duchatalet's incompetence.
If you ran a 500-room hotel which had gone from being sold out a decade ago to 30% occupancy wouldn't you contemplate converting some of the rooms to apartments?
I doubt there is sufficient land to make it very worthwhile to develop anyhow, but if there was a one-off opportunity to generate windfall profits from a near-empty rotting stand then you're being dogmatic to suggest it doesn't have even some merit.0 -
Not that I recall - and I think I would recall because I rarely spoke to the owners, whoever they might have been!Weegie Addick said:
£10 each if I remember rightly. And sold out well in advance. In fact, I think @Airman Brown even got a telling off from the owners at the time for selling them too cheaply!newyorkaddick said:
The tickets were heavily discounted...Weegie Addick said:
We sold out the stadium in L1 not that long ago. And the match result was meaningless. Mind you, we did see a trophy presented.newyorkaddick said:
There is no prospect of us filling a 27k stadium in L1 or the Championship - I'm not sure we'd fill it in the Premiership either except for a few fixtures. We can't even fill it for Football for a Fiver games any longer.Airman Brown said:
Permanently reduce the capacity of the ground to improve the atmosphere - I wonder why other clubs haven't thought of that?newyorkaddick said:
Why?SoundAsa£ said:
Possibly the worst idea since on a balmy August evening in 1888 in the village of Braunauam am Inn Austria, school teacher Alois Hitler turned to his wife Klara and said......"Fancy an early night luv?"newyorkaddick said:I am indifferent about this potential development but there is a case for reducing The Valley's capacity to improve the atmosphere and (eventually) create excess demand for tickets.
At 27k our capacity is larger than seven current top flight clubs, and moreover if we got back there someday the TV money completely overwhelms the opportunity cost of selling a few thousand more tickets. In the meantime say 20k is perfectly adequate.
If we built a new stadium from scratch it wouldn't be 27k capacity.
Do you not think every one of the current PL clubs with lower capacities than ours would prefer a larger one, regardless of the TV income? Are we giving up now on ever getting back there?
The Jimmy Seed Stand is the only part of the ground with potential for significant expansion. Limiting that forever by parcelling up the land into long residential leases to pay for Naby Sarr, Loic Nego and Polish Pete must be about the daftest idea since 1985.
And moving to a stadium with a lower capacity is the second stupidest, since that too would be all about money to pay for Duchatalet's incompetence.
If you ran a 500-room hotel which had gone from being sold out a decade ago to 30% occupancy wouldn't you contemplate converting some of the rooms to apartments?
I doubt there is sufficient land to make it very worthwhile to develop anyhow, but if there was a one-off opportunity to generate windfall profits from a near-empty rotting stand then you're being dogmatic to suggest it doesn't have even some merit.
From recollection the idea was to get the game sold out by the end of March so that even if it was a dead fixture, as indeed it proved, we would still have a capacity crowd and proper occasion for the presentation of the trophy.
It did work better than we had anticipated, so obviously we wondered afterwards if we had overdone it, but there were still tickets on sale in the run-up, just at full price.
In any event, it was my idea, but it wasn't my decision.2 -
He may well sleep in a coffin but with a stake through the heart he has a son who will no doubt inherit the football clubssoapy_jones said:
I was hoping he should die eventually. Unless he sleeps in a coffin AND feasts on the blood of third rate european footballers?charltonbob said:
But he would never depart, once he builds something that provides a regular income we would never be rid of him even if he sells the club he will keep the ground.soapy_jones said:It would be the cherry on a cake for uncle Roland to leave us with a complete turd of a redevelopment in the south of the ground before he finally departs. Nightmare.
0 -
A son who, if you ask some of the original Belgium20 who met him, doesn't have the time of day for us.charltonbob said:
He may well sleep in a coffin but with a stake through the heart he has a son who will no doubt inherit the football clubssoapy_jones said:
I was hoping he should die eventually. Unless he sleeps in a coffin AND feasts on the blood of third rate european footballers?charltonbob said:
But he would never depart, once he builds something that provides a regular income we would never be rid of him even if he sells the club he will keep the ground.soapy_jones said:It would be the cherry on a cake for uncle Roland to leave us with a complete turd of a redevelopment in the south of the ground before he finally departs. Nightmare.
0 -
Just read this thread. I wonder if newyorkaddick is aware that at St Truiden all profits from their redeveloped stadium go to Duchatelet and zero goes to St Truiden !
If RD redevelops The Valley he will almost certainly do the same and keep all the income himself, so on that basis there is zero benefit to the club to do so.4 -
Wasn't aware but doesn't sound very legal from a tax perspective unless he buys the land from the club on an arms length basis - others will know more though.Covered End said:Just read this thread. I wonder if newyorkaddick is aware that at St Truiden all profits from their redeveloped stadium go to Duchatelet and zero goes to St Truiden !
If RD redevelops The Valley he will almost certainly do the same and keep all the income himself, so on that basis there is zero benefit to the club to do so.0 -
If I buy one of the new half a million flats do I get 6 months free subscription to the new website?9
-
A free sofa, 3 months subscription and 24 frozen M&S Vol Au Vents.2
