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.
That's a bit short-termist? You'd hope there'd be Premier League ambitions left in the club somewhere. 20K would be too small, and you'd have to have another huge upheaval. Not worth it imho.
The JS stand always looks a little forlorn with the corner sections missing. The aim one day the aim was always to have a fully enclosed ground, so The JSS would need developing the make that happen.
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.
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.
I was hoping he should die eventually. Unless he sleeps in a coffin AND feasts on the blood of third rate european footballers?
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 clubs
Jimmy Seed had shares, but when he died the club took them back.
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.
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.
Do you think Roland would spend time and money on a scheme designed to make money for the club? That seems really unlikely to me.
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.
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.
Do you think Roland would spend time and money on a scheme designed to make money for the club? That seems really unlikely to me.
Any money the club makes is less money he has to put in himself....
It would be very easy for him to just carve out a piece of the current freehold around the South Stand and prior to obtaining planning sell it to himself / his wife. I would imagine there would be minimal value for a 'bit of a football stadium with no alternative use planning'.
Then he gets planning and all the value uplift is his. The ACV means he would have a bit of time wasted but would not stop it happening.
The club gets a small sum of money for the sale, he then takes that out as part repayment of his Director loans or interest due.
Net effect to Charlton is, in cash terms 0, in potential terms, massively destructive, in fact it could be argued fatal.
Yet you would be OK with this because we don't need the seats at this moment in time in League One and never see any time when we will ever return to the PL?
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.
That's a bit short-termist? You'd hope there'd be Premier League ambitions left in the club somewhere. 20K would be too small, and you'd have to have another huge upheaval. Not worth it imho.
The JS stand always looks a little forlorn with the corner sections missing. The aim one day the aim was always to have a fully enclosed ground, so The JSS would need developing the make that happen.
The probability of being promoted to the Prem under the present regime seems far-fetched whilst any new owners would have to be very deep-pocketed for the probability to be much better than say 25% on a 10-season view.
Moreover as mentioned already, there is a lot to be said for creating excess demand for tickets to boost both season ticket sales (to secure a guaranteed seat) and match-by-match sales (which could be priced much more aggressively). The key after all is total revenue not no. of seats.
If we ever re-established ourselves as a midsized solid Premiership side (similar to say Stoke, WBA, West Ham, Leicester etc.) then I'd see our future in a brand new stadium not at The Valley but that's likely the subject for another thread and not very relevant today anyhow.
Anyhow just to reiterate that I'm only suggesting a capacity reduction in the unlikely event that any land development is clearly very lucrative for the club in the short-term.
Whilst the ability for football clubs to ratchet up/down capacity has somewhat longer lead times than other 'high fixed cost/low variable cost' businesses (eg. hotels, airlines, restaurant chains etc.), the concept is very common for pretty obvious reasons.
It would be very easy for him to just carve out a piece of the current freehold around the South Stand and prior to obtaining planning sell it to himself / his wife. I would imagine there would be minimal value for a 'bit of a football stadium with no alternative use planning'.
Then he gets planning and all the value uplift is his. The ACV means he would have a bit of time wasted but would not stop it happening.
The club gets a small sum of money for the sale, he then takes that out as part repayment of his Director loans or interest due.
Net effect to Charlton is, in cash terms 0, in potential terms, massively destructive, in fact it could be argued fatal.
Yet you would be OK with this because we don't need the seats at this moment in time in League One and never see any time when we will ever return to the PL?
If he wanted to increase his personal exposure to global property, I doubt if a scrappy piece of land in SE London would be very high on his shopping list.
Also going to the trouble to develop it over the course of several years (whilst at the same time financing the lossmaking football club at ~£10m pa) strikes me as akin to stopping a major flood with a sandbag. Much better to sell I'd have thought (and hoped).
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.
That's a bit short-termist? You'd hope there'd be Premier League ambitions left in the club somewhere. 20K would be too small, and you'd have to have another huge upheaval. Not worth it imho.
The JS stand always looks a little forlorn with the corner sections missing. The aim one day the aim was always to have a fully enclosed ground, so The JSS would need developing the make that happen.
The probability of being promoted to the Prem under the present regime seems far-fetched whilst any new owners would have to be very deep-pocketed for the probability to be much better than say 25% on a 10-season view.
Moreover as mentioned already, there is a lot to be said for creating excess demand for tickets to boost both season ticket sales (to secure a guaranteed seat) and match-by-match sales (which could be priced much more aggressively). The key after all is total revenue not no. of seats.
If we ever re-established ourselves as a midsized solid Premiership side (similar to say Stoke, WBA, West Ham, Leicester etc.) then I'd see our future in a brand new stadium not at The Valley but that's likely the subject for another thread and not very relevant today anyhow.
Anyhow just to reiterate that I'm only suggesting a capacity reduction in the unlikely event that any land development is clearly very lucrative for the club in the short-term. Whilst the ability for football clubs to ratchet up/down capacity has somewhat longer lead times than other 'high fixed cost/low variable cost' businesses (eg. hotels, airlines, restaurant chains etc.), the concept is very common for pretty obvious reasons.
The difference is that flying empty planes, heating and maintaining empty hotel space or unused covers and kitchen capacity in restaurants is a cost, whereas empty seats in a football stand that meets safety requirements are not.
There may be an opportunity cost argument but you could apply that to the running of a football club outside the PL as a whole.
Unless you are ruling out promotion to the Championship, there is a strong case for maintaining 3,000 away seats.
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.
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.
Do you think Roland would spend time and money on a scheme designed to make money for the club? That seems really unlikely to me.
Any money the club makes is less money he has to put in himself....
I think he'd prefer profit from a venture like that to go straight into his pocket rather than a bottomless hole.
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.
That's a bit short-termist? You'd hope there'd be Premier League ambitions left in the club somewhere. 20K would be too small, and you'd have to have another huge upheaval. Not worth it imho.
The JS stand always looks a little forlorn with the corner sections missing. The aim one day the aim was always to have a fully enclosed ground, so The JSS would need developing the make that happen.
The probability of being promoted to the Prem under the present regime seems far-fetched whilst any new owners would have to be very deep-pocketed for the probability to be much better than say 25% on a 10-season view.
Moreover as mentioned already, there is a lot to be said for creating excess demand for tickets to boost both season ticket sales (to secure a guaranteed seat) and match-by-match sales (which could be priced much more aggressively). The key after all is total revenue not no. of seats.
If we ever re-established ourselves as a midsized solid Premiership side (similar to say Stoke, WBA, West Ham, Leicester etc.) then I'd see our future in a brand new stadium not at The Valley but that's likely the subject for another thread and not very relevant today anyhow.
Anyhow just to reiterate that I'm only suggesting a capacity reduction in the unlikely event that any land development is clearly very lucrative for the club in the short-term. Whilst the ability for football clubs to ratchet up/down capacity has somewhat longer lead times than other 'high fixed cost/low variable cost' businesses (eg. hotels, airlines, restaurant chains etc.), the concept is very common for pretty obvious reasons.
The difference is that flying empty planes, heating and maintaining empty hotel space or unused covers and kitchen capacity in restaurants is a cost, whereas empty seats in a football stand that meets safety requirements are not.
There may be an opportunity cost argument but you could apply that to the running of a football club outside the PL as a whole.
Unless you are ruling out promotion to the Championship, there is a strong case for maintaining 3,000 away seats.
It would be very easy for him to just carve out a piece of the current freehold around the South Stand and prior to obtaining planning sell it to himself / his wife. I would imagine there would be minimal value for a 'bit of a football stadium with no alternative use planning'.
Then he gets planning and all the value uplift is his. The ACV means he would have a bit of time wasted but would not stop it happening.
The club gets a small sum of money for the sale, he then takes that out as part repayment of his Director loans or interest due.
Net effect to Charlton is, in cash terms 0, in potential terms, massively destructive, in fact it could be argued fatal.
Yet you would be OK with this because we don't need the seats at this moment in time in League One and never see any time when we will ever return to the PL?
If he wanted to increase his personal exposure to global property, I doubt if a scrappy piece of land in SE London would be very high on his shopping list.
Also going to the trouble to develop it over the course of several years (whilst at the same time financing the lossmaking football club at ~£10m pa) strikes me as akin to stopping a major flood with a sandbag. Much better to sell I'd have thought (and hoped).
If he wanted to increase his exposure to global real estate there are of course many better options as a buyer. However he already owns us, has already done his money in acquiring so it is a completely different dynamic in that respect.
One of the reasons The Valley is still there is that the site is landlocked. Can you imagine large numbers of delivery vehicles getting in and out of the site on a regular basis? This prevents commercial development. There is a master plan for the other side of Woolwich Road which includes new roads which are necessary to support the new buildings. The railway is a major barrier which safeguards the ground to a fair extent.
Asbestos is fine as long as the panels remain in good condition but they have to be inspected on a regular basis. At some point the roof will have to be replaced. The stand is getting on in years and does need updating.
But confused here, we did sell out frequently in the premiership. Also a huge amount of real estate has gone up locally since then, as has premiership prize money.
Our gates were holding up and growing in league 1 and then the champs despite the leadership of the spivs
It might take time but under enlightened ownership I don't see why we couldn't sell out home areas in the Championship, let alone the prem. Just take a look at what Brighton have achieved.
Comments
The JS stand always looks a little forlorn with the corner sections missing. The aim one day the aim was always to have a fully enclosed ground, so The JSS would need developing the make that happen.
Then he gets planning and all the value uplift is his. The ACV means he would have a bit of time wasted but would not stop it happening.
The club gets a small sum of money for the sale, he then takes that out as part repayment of his Director loans or interest due.
Net effect to Charlton is, in cash terms 0, in potential terms, massively destructive, in fact it could be argued fatal.
Yet you would be OK with this because we don't need the seats at this moment in time in League One and never see any time when we will ever return to the PL?
Moreover as mentioned already, there is a lot to be said for creating excess demand for tickets to boost both season ticket sales (to secure a guaranteed seat) and match-by-match sales (which could be priced much more aggressively). The key after all is total revenue not no. of seats.
If we ever re-established ourselves as a midsized solid Premiership side (similar to say Stoke, WBA, West Ham, Leicester etc.) then I'd see our future in a brand new stadium not at The Valley but that's likely the subject for another thread and not very relevant today anyhow.
Anyhow just to reiterate that I'm only suggesting a capacity reduction in the unlikely event that any land development is clearly very lucrative for the club in the short-term.
Whilst the ability for football clubs to ratchet up/down capacity has somewhat longer lead times than other 'high fixed cost/low variable cost' businesses (eg. hotels, airlines, restaurant chains etc.), the concept is very common for pretty obvious reasons.
Also going to the trouble to develop it over the course of several years (whilst at the same time financing the lossmaking football club at ~£10m pa) strikes me as akin to stopping a major flood with a sandbag. Much better to sell I'd have thought (and hoped).
There may be an opportunity cost argument but you could apply that to the running of a football club outside the PL as a whole.
Unless you are ruling out promotion to the Championship, there is a strong case for maintaining 3,000 away seats.
Asbestos is fine as long as the panels remain in good condition but they have to be inspected on a regular basis. At some point the roof will have to be replaced. The stand is getting on in years and does need updating.
Our gates were holding up and growing in league 1 and then the champs despite the leadership of the spivs
It might take time but under enlightened ownership I don't see why we couldn't sell out home areas in the Championship, let alone the prem. Just take a look at what Brighton have achieved.