'and once we get to January we will have a right go in the transfer market'
Translates to, We'll sell Ezri Konsa for £5m and replace him with Roger Johnson"
And complain that other clubs are over pricing their players so we won't buy them but wait till the summer and there is this great player we are talking to now who will join us two weeks into 2018/19 totally unfit.
Why didn't we have a "right go" in the summer transfer window?
because we didn't sell Konza and all the Lookman money is meant to be going on the training ground.
Or mostly on Footscray Rugby Club's site and CACT, as has actually been most of the work/investment this summer? Lookman for rugby facilities - you know it makes sense!
That's a bit of a cheap shot. The work going on there means the rest of the work can be done. It might be taking an age I grant, but let's get the facts a bit more balanced.
Which are?
Fact - the academy prior to the current regime had to train in the dark because the previous regime and the one before could not organise fixing flood lights. Fact - the community trust, by having their own picth and facilities mean the academy won't have to leave the atro early as it's been booked by a community session Fact - the facilities today even when they are not complete are far better than I have seen and the academy have experienced in 8 years at least. Fact - the pitches now mean far less call offs and flooding Fact - when finally complete Charlton will be Cat 1 academy and will benefit from no longer seeing their best players easily picked by the bright lights and shiny car parks of other clubs.
Why couldn't they train in the day when it was light? Hope they ate their carrots.
Why didn't we have a "right go" in the summer transfer window?
because we didn't sell Konza and all the Lookman money is meant to be going on the training ground.
Or mostly on Footscray Rugby Club's site and CACT, as has actually been most of the work/investment this summer? Lookman for rugby facilities - you know it makes sense!
That's a bit of a cheap shot. The work going on there means the rest of the work can be done. It might be taking an age I grant, but let's get the facts a bit more balanced.
People keep asserting this but in planning terms it isn't true. So what does it mean?
Why didn't we have a "right go" in the summer transfer window?
because we didn't sell Konza and all the Lookman money is meant to be going on the training ground.
Or mostly on Footscray Rugby Club's site and CACT, as has actually been most of the work/investment this summer? Lookman for rugby facilities - you know it makes sense!
That's a bit of a cheap shot. The work going on there means the rest of the work can be done. It might be taking an age I grant, but let's get the facts a bit more balanced.
Which are?
Fact - the academy prior to the current regime had to train in the dark because the previous regime and the one before could not organise fixing flood lights. Fact - the community trust, by having their own picth and facilities mean the academy won't have to leave the atro early as it's been booked by a community session Fact - the facilities today even when they are not complete are far better than I have seen and the academy have experienced in 8 years at least. Fact - the pitches now mean far less call offs and flooding Fact - when finally complete Charlton will be Cat 1 academy and will benefit from no longer seeing their best players easily picked by the bright lights and shiny car parks of other clubs.
None of this relates to the point I am making, which is that the stalled academy and first team facilities are not contingent on spending £1.8m on the rugby club site and patching up the community building.
The club had permission in 2015 for everything related to the football club. It had permission to use Sparrows Lane only for access and it had (separate) permission to build the community scheme a new building on the existing car park. It was the Varney/2014 scheme that had the community sharing the new main building.
Absolutely nothing in terms of the professional football facilities was missing in the 2015 permission and is being added by spending £1.8m of club funds on the rugby club site (and CACT refurbishment).
The club cannot be kicked off facilities that it owns and paid for by the community trust as far as I can see. There has been a dedicated community pitch in every one of the planning applications and multiple other pitches, grass and 3G, in the 2015 scheme. And even if there had been a conflict in the scheme the current regime itself designed in the 2015 permission, it was entirely their scheme. Why didn't they manage that out then?
We all agree the TG will be better when developed (and the work that has been done is good) but if there are "facts" that disprove my point about phase two let's have them.
What is the merit of it for professional football and if it exists is it worth £1.8m plus interest?
All I can see is that there would have been a cost to building the new community structure which is a partial offset, but again why is the club investing in the community trust ahead of the professional set-up?
Is this a sensible priority for a League One club, against, say, another striker or just getting on with main work on facilities for the football club?
It could be argued that today's game shows we don't have that small a squad, other than the ridiculous lack of cover for Magennis. We had half our first choice defence missing, and if anything played better. In 2 weeks time we'll have massive choice for the attacking midfield positions.
Agree with killer,the lack of a six yard box tap in merchant will mean we have next to no chance of getting in the automatic positions.
The squad size for a league 1 side seems normal. We have a much better balanced team than a year ago.
Holmes,Fosu and Forster-Caskey are scoring goals but defeats at lowly Gillingham and Plymouth show we need a fox in the box.
Big Josh is a decent target man but 15 goals max will be his limit.
Great win today but January will decide if we are serious about getting back to the championship with the addition of a striker to cover/push or play alongside Josh.
There is no such thing as a deep squad in League One. That's why we are in League One. As well as everyone else.
Robinson was really banging on about the small squad again post match on BBC London. Specifically he said that he has about 8 kids in that squad with about a minute's senior time each, take them away and it really is a thin squad. His words, not mine. He keeps on about this, even after a good win, so he surely he believes it, and is sending a message. He has, after all, won promotion out of this division, as well as two play off seasons, so he knows what a decent squad looks like in this division. I don't know how strong a grip you feel you have on the strength of the other clubs squads, and knowledge of the players, but I would kind of expect KR to have a superior knowledge of it. That, after all is his job.
The frustration most of us have is that it is probably only 2-3 players short. However, you tell me. If we were facing Peterborough next week, with Magennis called up, what would be your line up, attack-wise?
Maybe Robinsons banging on about a small squad is not for our consumption but his bosses?? He may feel that with a few more players promotion is doable and that is ultimately what the team want.
Why didn't we have a "right go" in the summer transfer window?
because we didn't sell Konza and all the Lookman money is meant to be going on the training ground.
Or mostly on Footscray Rugby Club's site and CACT, as has actually been most of the work/investment this summer? Lookman for rugby facilities - you know it makes sense!
That's a bit of a cheap shot. The work going on there means the rest of the work can be done. It might be taking an age I grant, but let's get the facts a bit more balanced.
Which are?
Fact - the academy prior to the current regime had to train in the dark because the previous regime and the one before could not organise fixing flood lights. Fact - the community trust, by having their own picth and facilities mean the academy won't have to leave the atro early as it's been booked by a community session Fact - the facilities today even when they are not complete are far better than I have seen and the academy have experienced in 8 years at least. Fact - the pitches now mean far less call offs and flooding Fact - when finally complete Charlton will be Cat 1 academy and will benefit from no longer seeing their best players easily picked by the bright lights and shiny car parks of other clubs.
Thanks,
The first four are all valid and it's true Sparrows Lane had become very shabby but the fifth isn't a fact as it hasn't happened and there is no clear idea when it will.
That's the question about why the rugby club first before the main building has even started when it was meant to be all done by December 2016.
The regime has been here for nearly four years now and planning permission was in place before they came.
Especially since the £8m from Lookman is said to be paying for it all.
That money is over the hill and far away as I expect RD to be soon as well.
When asked if Duchatelet has given him any guarantees over January transfer business, Valley boss Robinson said: Yes. You’re going to get me in trouble with the owner!
“I think the owner knows. We felt it was too late to do anything at the beginning of the season - it would've been a risk [to sign more players].
“I back myself and my players. It’s hard sometimes as a manager when you can’t get exactly what you want.
“But we felt having a small squad was important and then if we’re close enough [to promotion in January] it’s less of a risk.
“There’s less time for things to go wrong. Listen it’s going to be hard to find better than what we’ve got.”
Maybe Robinsons banging on about a small squad is not for our consumption but his bosses?? He may feel that with a few more players promotion is doable and that is ultimately what the team want.
When asked if Duchatelet has given him any guarantees over January transfer business, Valley boss Robinson said: Yes. You’re going to get me in trouble with the owner!
“I think the owner knows. We felt it was too late to do anything at the beginning of the season - it would've been a risk [to sign more players].
“I back myself and my players. It’s hard sometimes as a manager when you can’t get exactly what you want.
“But we felt having a small squad was important and then if we’re close enough [to promotion in January] it’s less of a risk.
“There’s less time for things to go wrong. Listen it’s going to be hard to find better than what we’ve got.”
Just what was said when Peeter made his good start. The team fell away and Peeters was sacked.
When asked if Duchatelet has given him any guarantees over January transfer business, Valley boss Robinson said: Yes. You’re going to get me in trouble with the owner!
“I think the owner knows. We felt it was too late to do anything at the beginning of the season - it would've been a risk [to sign more players].
“I back myself and my players. It’s hard sometimes as a manager when you can’t get exactly what you want.
“But we felt having a small squad was important and then if we’re close enough [to promotion in January] it’s less of a risk.
“There’s less time for things to go wrong. Listen it’s going to be hard to find better than what we’ve got.”
I've tried Google Translate but I still can't work out the point of what he's saying.
When asked if Duchatelet has given him any guarantees over January transfer business, Valley boss Robinson said: Yes. You’re going to get me in trouble with the owner!
“I think the owner knows. We felt it was too late to do anything at the beginning of the season - it would've been a risk [to sign more players].
“I back myself and my players. It’s hard sometimes as a manager when you can’t get exactly what you want.
“But we felt having a small squad was important and then if we’re close enough [to promotion in January] it’s less of a risk.
“There’s less time for things to go wrong. Listen it’s going to be hard to find better than what we’ve got.”
He's chatting absolute bollocks there. No manager in the world has ever been, and probably never will be, happy with a small squad. They would all like as many options as possible. Does he seriously expect us to believe that if RD had said to him, "here's 2m, go and buy 3-4 more players" he'd have said no thanks, it's important we maintain a small squad.
And as for it being too late to do anything at the start of the season, why not do something in July instead then?
Please just shut the fuck up and concentrate on getting results like yesterday.
When asked if Duchatelet has given him any guarantees over January transfer business, Valley boss Robinson said: Yes. You’re going to get me in trouble with the owner!
“I think the owner knows. We felt it was too late to do anything at the beginning of the season - it would've been a risk [to sign more players].
“I back myself and my players. It’s hard sometimes as a manager when you can’t get exactly what you want.
“But we felt having a small squad was important and then if we’re close enough [to promotion in January] it’s less of a risk.
“There’s less time for things to go wrong. Listen it’s going to be hard to find better than what we’ve got.”
Just what was said when Peeter made his good start. The team fell away and Peeters was sacked.
It seems strange to say this off the back of a 3-1 away win and sitting in the play offs but I'm more convinced than ever KR won't make it too far in 2018 before the eject button is pushed.
We've heard all this before about investment in January if we are in a good position, but we have never been in a good enough position because lack of proper investment before the season kicks off. It's just Roland's way of saying 'make miracles happen and I'll throw you a bone, otherwise, suck it up'.
In terms of our formation (which a lot of teams in the PL play at the moment) we need another, better target man like Josh rather than a goal poacher type. And with the options we have for the 3 attacking midfielders, goals shouldn't be a problem with Reeves and Marshall now also available.
Airman, whilst we are all I agreed (I think), on the time it's taking, the work on the rugby ground is 100% needed for the entire scheme to work . This whole new site in the rugby ground, was never in the original plans and makes absolute sense to move it out and be separate. As I have stated, it is 100% fact, that during training academy teams have had to be bumped off the community pitch so that the community sides can use it. By separating both groups get a significant benefit. I have lived that experience and all the others above.
Just because a planning application was made by Varney, it is irrelevant if it it's not fit for purpose, it certainly did not meet all the new cat 1 requirements and the new plans far out weigh what was originally proposed.
In case you have not noticed, it's not just the astro work over the summer......I have not studied the sequencing but the fact they have now upgraded all the first team pitches, means they can now start on removing the small astro and move the main feature pitch, which then means the building can start.
Airman, whilst we are all I agreed (I think), on the time it's taking, the work on the rugby ground is 100% needed for the entire scheme to work . This whole new site in the rugby ground, was never in the original plans and makes absolute sense to move it out and be separate. As I have stated, it is 100% fact, that during training academy teams have had to be bumped off the community pitch so that the community sides can use it. By separating both groups get a significant benefit. I have lived that experience and all the others above.
Just because a planning application was made by Varney, it is irrelevant if it it's not fit for purpose, it certainly did not meet all the new cat 1 requirements and the new plans far out weigh what was originally proposed.
In case you have not noticed, it's not just the astro work over the summer......I have not studied the sequencing but the fact they have now upgraded all the first team pitches, means they can now start on removing the small astro and move the main feature pitch, which then means the building can start.
You are talking about the situation now, I think, and not the planning application submitted by this regime, to its own design, and approved in 2015.
If you read my VOTV piece I don't dispute the 2015 scheme is better than the 2014 one, but it won't be if it is never built.
The 2014 "Varney" application - in fact also submitted by this regime - has no other relevance to this discussion. I only mentioned it because people confuse the fact that trust were In the main building in that scheme. There is a separate trust building in the 2015 scheme. As it happens the trust building has been downgraded from 2015 in the latest scheme. One classroom instead of two, for example. Refurbishment and extension not new purpose built as presented to the council in 2015.
I fully accept that phase three this summer and the earlier phase one are improvements that have benefited the club.
You seem to be arguing that phase two - trust shed apart entirely on the rugby club site, leased from the council by them and not owned by Charlton - has some relocation of community use benefit for the football club.
Even if that's the case - and the benchmark is RD's 2015 approved scheme not the status quo - the question remains: is that a £1.8m benefit to the football club and is it a priority over the first team and academy work. That's why it features in this thread.
I accept phase three - drainage and services costed at £600k - is necessary work towards phase four. I'm still not clear how £1.8m phase two can be.
In fact, there is an argument that new phase two provides the community/relocation benefit independently of the 2015 scheme (phase four) - and thus is being delivered now precisely because the phase four elements have not been (and may never be) completed.
It remains highly unlikely the club will get category one status in L1 - no club ever has, not least because of the cost, and the Prem clubs won't want it. So unless we prioritise and achieve promotion, my fear is that phase four remains a fiction. Given the squad is short, the club's spending priorities must be open to debate, even if you accept it should subsidise CACT, which is a new development at odds with the parsimonious general running of the football club.
Airman, whilst we are all I agreed (I think), on the time it's taking, the work on the rugby ground is 100% needed for the entire scheme to work . This whole new site in the rugby ground, was never in the original plans and makes absolute sense to move it out and be separate. As I have stated, it is 100% fact, that during training academy teams have had to be bumped off the community pitch so that the community sides can use it. By separating both groups get a significant benefit. I have lived that experience and all the others above.
Just because a planning application was made by Varney, it is irrelevant if it it's not fit for purpose, it certainly did not meet all the new cat 1 requirements and the new plans far out weigh what was originally proposed.
In case you have not noticed, it's not just the astro work over the summer......I have not studied the sequencing but the fact they have now upgraded all the first team pitches, means they can now start on removing the small astro and move the main feature pitch, which then means the building can start.
You are talking about the situation now, I think, and not the planning application submitted by this regime, to its own design, and approved in 2015.
If you read my VOTV piece I don't dispute the 2015 scheme is better than the 2014 one, but it won't be if it is never built.
The 2014 "Varney" application - in fact also submitted by this regime - has no other relevance to this discussion. I only mentioned it because people confuse the fact that trust were In the main building in that scheme. There is a separate trust building in the 2015 scheme. As it happens the trust building has been downgraded from 2015 in the latest scheme. One classroom instead of two, for example.
I fully accept that phase three thus summer and the earlier phase one are improvements that have benefited the club.
You seem to be arguing that phase two - entirely on the rugby club site, leased from the council by them and not owned by Charlton - has some relocation of community use benefit for the football club.
Even if that's the case - and the benchmark is RD's 2015 approved scheme not the status quo - the question remains: is that a £1.8m benefit to the football club and is it a priority over the first team and academy work.
I accept phase three - drainage and services costed at £600k is necessary work towards phase four. I'm still not clear how £1.8m phase two can be.
In fact, there is an argument that new phase two provides the community/relocation benefit independently of the 2015 scheme - and thus is being delivered now precisely because phase four has not been (and may never be) completed.
It (the new community astro) will have a benefit, that's why they are doing it. It's not just a new pitch for the trust though. I understood there is new access roads, car park lighting, etc from the rugby club site being created in this. Like you I'm not close enough to this and like you frustrated on how long it's taking. Will phase 4 happen?, I have to say I think it will, that's what seems to be the word in the ground, when..........? Who knows. The club are poor at wider updates as we know. If completed there is absolutely no doubt it will benefit the club. However I do accept it goes hand in hand with success and investment of the first team. Probably not relevant to the conversation but for balance, try and have a look at Millwall's training ground..... you will see Charlton already eclipse theirs. Their focus has been first team over the years but now are trying to bring back the youth set up. Charlton are streets ahead. If they get the rest of it completed it will be one of the best in London.
Airman, whilst we are all I agreed (I think), on the time it's taking, the work on the rugby ground is 100% needed for the entire scheme to work . This whole new site in the rugby ground, was never in the original plans and makes absolute sense to move it out and be separate. As I have stated, it is 100% fact, that during training academy teams have had to be bumped off the community pitch so that the community sides can use it. By separating both groups get a significant benefit. I have lived that experience and all the others above.
Just because a planning application was made by Varney, it is irrelevant if it it's not fit for purpose, it certainly did not meet all the new cat 1 requirements and the new plans far out weigh what was originally proposed.
In case you have not noticed, it's not just the astro work over the summer......I have not studied the sequencing but the fact they have now upgraded all the first team pitches, means they can now start on removing the small astro and move the main feature pitch, which then means the building can start.
You are talking about the situation now, I think, and not the planning application submitted by this regime, to its own design, and approved in 2015.
If you read my VOTV piece I don't dispute the 2015 scheme is better than the 2014 one, but it won't be if it is never built.
The 2014 "Varney" application - in fact also submitted by this regime - has no other relevance to this discussion. I only mentioned it because people confuse the fact that trust were In the main building in that scheme. There is a separate trust building in the 2015 scheme. As it happens the trust building has been downgraded from 2015 in the latest scheme. One classroom instead of two, for example.
I fully accept that phase three thus summer and the earlier phase one are improvements that have benefited the club.
You seem to be arguing that phase two - entirely on the rugby club site, leased from the council by them and not owned by Charlton - has some relocation of community use benefit for the football club.
Even if that's the case - and the benchmark is RD's 2015 approved scheme not the status quo - the question remains: is that a £1.8m benefit to the football club and is it a priority over the first team and academy work.
I accept phase three - drainage and services costed at £600k is necessary work towards phase four. I'm still not clear how £1.8m phase two can be.
In fact, there is an argument that new phase two provides the community/relocation benefit independently of the 2015 scheme - and thus is being delivered now precisely because phase four has not been (and may never be) completed.
It (the new community astro) will have a benefit, that's why they are doing it. It's not just a new pitch for the trust though. I understood there is new access roads, car park lighting, etc from the rugby club site being created in this. Like you I'm not close enough to this and like you frustrated on how long it's taking. Will phase 4 happen?, I have to say I think it will, that's what seems to be the word in the ground, when..........? Who knows. The club are poor at wider updates as we know. If completed there is absolutely no doubt it will benefit the club. However I do accept it goes hand in hand with success and investment of the first team. Probably not relevant to the conversation but for balance, try and have a look at Millwall's training ground..... you will see Charlton already eclipse theirs. Their focus has been first team over the years but now are trying to bring back the youth set up. Charlton are streets ahead. If they get the rest of it completed it will be one of the best in London.
Benefit to CACT, certainly. But what benefit for CAFC over and above the 2015 scheme? If the 2015 scheme was inadequate, why was it drawn up that way and submitted? But most importantly the 2015 permission allows the CAFC facilities to be built. Period.
I understand what you are saying and I agree that the ideal of a modern well equipped training ground is desirable, but it comes down to priorities RD's aren't the same as those of Charlton fans, as I think we have pretty much established. The long-term question about spending on the training ground is whether there is ultimately a corresponding or greater business benefit to each aspect for the football club. Most of us see CACT as a good thing, but ultimately even CACT is impacted by failure on the pitch. I'm certain it was much easier to impress young people with the badge, sell junior football courses, etc, when the club was in the Premier League. And it's no good having a better academy than Millwall if they remain in a higher division because the young players are sold on quickly. Most fans want to watch the first team, not the U23s. It's a question of balancing short and long-term priorities and obviously capital investment has to be strategic and has a longer timeframe.
The access argument is a good case in point regarding priorities. The fact is that the 2015 permission established that the club could use Sparrows Lane for everything the football club currently has permission to build on its site and everything it said CACT needed. I don't doubt that the second access via the rugby site is desirable, but it is not necessary for CAFC - the 2015 permission established that definitively. That's really the point of the planning process. So the club cannot now argue that it needed the second access - and if it does it is not for professional football. Hence it does not seem to me a priority, with the club in League One.
Some of this argument does come down to the club communicating with fans as if they were 14 years of age, which is a problem specific to both this and the Jimenez regime. But an advantage of that to the regime is concealment, which is why they have to be questioned.
“There’s less time for things to go wrong. Listen it’s going to be hard to find better than what we’ve got.”
He has given himself a get out if he isn't allowed to bring anyone of note in.
I don't think it's going to be that hard to find better than Magennis
It is unless you're willing to pay a big fee. Proven strikers aren't cheap and for all his weaknesses Magennis is a good player at this level.
They're probably hoping someone scoring regularly will be available at a cut price, like when we signed BWP.
Absolutely, which is why he is currently first choice for a notably successful Northern Ireland team.
@wmcf123 whom did you have in mind? And how would you tempt them to come to 3rd division Charlton, even if a transfer fee was agreed?
He plays on the wing for Northern Ireland.
Magennis is useful, but just don't think he's good enough to go up with as a main striker. As to whom we could get in, I've got no idea what our budget might be. Assuming Magennis cost 100k, I think you could probably get better for not much more. I'm afraid my knowledge of league one strikers isn't that sensational to give you names.
While I'm aware that strikers will cost more money, we've picked up really good players in other positions (Caskey, Pearce, JDS, Holmes, Clarke, possibly Reeves and Marshall) so I believe it should be possible to get a reasonable striker too.
“There’s less time for things to go wrong. Listen it’s going to be hard to find better than what we’ve got.”
He has given himself a get out if he isn't allowed to bring anyone of note in.
I don't think it's going to be that hard to find better than Magennis
It is unless you're willing to pay a big fee. Proven strikers aren't cheap and for all his weaknesses Magennis is a good player at this level.
They're probably hoping someone scoring regularly will be available at a cut price, like when we signed BWP.
Absolutely, which is why he is currently first choice for a notably successful Northern Ireland team.
@wmcf123 whom did you have in mind? And how would you tempt them to come to 3rd division Charlton, even if a transfer fee was agreed?
He plays on the wing for Northern Ireland.
Magennis is useful, but just don't think he's good enough to go up with as a main striker. As to whom we could get in, I've got no idea what our budget might be. Assuming Magennis cost 100k, I think you could probably get better for not much more. I'm afraid my knowledge of league one strikers isn't that sensational to give you names.
While I'm aware that strikers will cost more money, we've picked up really good players in other positions (Caskey, Pearce, JDS, Holmes, Clarke, possibly Reeves and Marshall) so I believe it should be possible to get a reasonable striker too.
Not always; first time I saw him live, as I've several times written, was out here in Prague for NI against the Czechs when he came on as a direct replacement for Kyle Lafferty in a 4-4-2 and scared the shit out of the Czech defence (which lets face it is a few levels above the average Div 3 defence). I agree that the lone man up front may not be his best role, but that isn't his fault. There is no alternative formation, is there?
Don't we know that Wigan expect £1m for Will Grigg? If so I am not sure he is ten times better than Josh, in fact i am not sure he is better at all.
I'm sorry I don't have as much confidence as you do in the buying capabilities of this regime. What we know from the SCP title winning regime is that you do your business as early as possible in summer, having lined targets up in advance, and that applies to strikers more than most. This summer we seemed to have learnt that lesson, and then things gummed up again. We started the job but we did not finish it.
Anyway as far as I am concerned Josh is a great player at this level so I am always going to defend him.
already there is competition for places in most areas ..
Central .. Sarr/Lennon/Bauer/Pearce/Konsa .. midfield ... Kashi/Forster- Caskey/Dijkstiel/Clarke/Reeves/Marshall/Holmes ...
possibly only at full back ( Page will soon be fit, but is he good enough ? .. and Konsa fits in well at right back) and definitely up front are we possibly lacking .... (and it is a certainty that no striker/target man of real quality will be happy hanging around waiting for Magennis to miss the odd game) .. Jose Mourinho once opined in his Chelsea days, that 23/24 good players is enough, we are very close to that figure .. I am not of course suggesting that our squad is close to a Premier winning one, but you must get my drift
Personally, I want a settled 14/15 to rely on .. too many players can spoil group harmony and make life difficult for the manager .. you only had to look at the spirit amongst the players yesterday (admittedly after a win and a hat trick) to see that they have settled in well together .. too many outsiders could spoil this dynamic
Comments
The club had permission in 2015 for everything related to the football club. It had permission to use Sparrows Lane only for access and it had (separate) permission to build the community scheme a new building on the existing car park. It was the Varney/2014 scheme that had the community sharing the new main building.
Absolutely nothing in terms of the professional football facilities was missing in the 2015 permission and is being added by spending £1.8m of club funds on the rugby club site (and CACT refurbishment).
The club cannot be kicked off facilities that it owns and paid for by the community trust as far as I can see. There has been a dedicated community pitch in every one of the planning applications and multiple other pitches, grass and 3G, in the 2015 scheme. And even if there had been a conflict in the scheme the current regime itself designed in the 2015 permission, it was entirely their scheme. Why didn't they manage that out then?
We all agree the TG will be better when developed (and the work that has been done is good) but if there are "facts" that disprove my point about phase two let's have them.
What is the merit of it for professional football and if it exists is it worth £1.8m plus interest?
All I can see is that there would have been a cost to building the new community structure which is a partial offset, but again why is the club investing in the community trust ahead of the professional set-up?
Is this a sensible priority for a League One club, against, say, another striker or just getting on with main work on facilities for the football club?
The squad size for a league 1 side seems normal.
We have a much better balanced team than a year ago.
Holmes,Fosu and Forster-Caskey are scoring goals but defeats at lowly Gillingham and Plymouth show we need a fox in the box.
Big Josh is a decent target man but 15 goals max will be his limit.
Great win today but January will decide if we are serious about getting back to the championship with the addition of a striker to cover/push or play alongside Josh.
He may feel that with a few more players promotion is doable and that is ultimately what the team want.
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/sport/15568516.Robinson_reveals_the_transfer_guarantee_Charlton_owner_has_given_him/
When asked if Duchatelet has given him any guarantees over January transfer business, Valley boss Robinson said: Yes. You’re going to get me in trouble with the owner!
“I think the owner knows. We felt it was too late to do anything at the beginning of the season - it would've been a risk [to sign more players].
“I back myself and my players. It’s hard sometimes as a manager when you can’t get exactly what you want.
“But we felt having a small squad was important and then if we’re close enough [to promotion in January] it’s less of a risk.
“There’s less time for things to go wrong. Listen it’s going to be hard to find better than what we’ve got.”
And as for it being too late to do anything at the start of the season, why not do something in July instead then?
Please just shut the fuck up and concentrate on getting results like yesterday.
He has given himself a get out if he isn't allowed to bring anyone of note in.
They're probably hoping someone scoring regularly will be available at a cut price, like when we signed BWP.
Just because a planning application was made by Varney, it is irrelevant if it it's not fit for purpose, it certainly did not meet all the new cat 1 requirements and the new plans far out weigh what was originally proposed.
In case you have not noticed, it's not just the astro work over the summer......I have not studied the sequencing but the fact they have now upgraded all the first team pitches, means they can now start on removing the small astro and move the main feature pitch, which then means the building can start.
@wmcf123 whom did you have in mind? And how would you tempt them to come to 3rd division Charlton, even if a transfer fee was agreed?
If you read my VOTV piece I don't dispute the 2015 scheme is better than the 2014 one, but it won't be if it is never built.
The 2014 "Varney" application - in fact also submitted by this regime - has no other relevance to this discussion. I only mentioned it because people confuse the fact that trust were In the main building in that scheme. There is a separate trust building in the 2015 scheme. As it happens the trust building has been downgraded from 2015 in the latest scheme. One classroom instead of two, for example. Refurbishment and extension not new purpose built as presented to the council in 2015.
I fully accept that phase three this summer and the earlier phase one are improvements that have benefited the club.
You seem to be arguing that phase two - trust shed apart entirely on the rugby club site, leased from the council by them and not owned by Charlton - has some relocation of community use benefit for the football club.
Even if that's the case - and the benchmark is RD's 2015 approved scheme not the status quo - the question remains: is that a £1.8m benefit to the football club and is it a priority over the first team and academy work. That's why it features in this thread.
I accept phase three - drainage and services costed at £600k - is necessary work towards phase four. I'm still not clear how £1.8m phase two can be.
In fact, there is an argument that new phase two provides the community/relocation benefit independently of the 2015 scheme (phase four) - and thus is being delivered now precisely because the phase four elements have not been (and may never be) completed.
It remains highly unlikely the club will get category one status in L1 - no club ever has, not least because of the cost, and the Prem clubs won't want it. So unless we prioritise and achieve promotion, my fear is that phase four remains a fiction. Given the squad is short, the club's spending priorities must be open to debate, even if you accept it should subsidise CACT, which is a new development at odds with the parsimonious general running of the football club.
I question the business logic of it.
It's not just a new pitch for the trust though. I understood there is new access roads, car park lighting, etc from the rugby club site being created in this.
Like you I'm not close enough to this and like you frustrated on how long it's taking. Will phase 4 happen?, I have to say I think it will, that's what seems to be the word in the ground, when..........? Who knows. The club are poor at wider updates as we know.
If completed there is absolutely no doubt it will benefit the club. However I do accept it goes hand in hand with success and investment of the first team.
Probably not relevant to the conversation but for balance, try and have a look at Millwall's training ground..... you will see Charlton already eclipse theirs. Their focus has been first team over the years but now are trying to bring back the youth set up. Charlton are streets ahead. If they get the rest of it completed it will be one of the best in London.
I understand what you are saying and I agree that the ideal of a modern well equipped training ground is desirable, but it comes down to priorities RD's aren't the same as those of Charlton fans, as I think we have pretty much established. The long-term question about spending on the training ground is whether there is ultimately a corresponding or greater business benefit to each aspect for the football club. Most of us see CACT as a good thing, but ultimately even CACT is impacted by failure on the pitch. I'm certain it was much easier to impress young people with the badge, sell junior football courses, etc, when the club was in the Premier League. And it's no good having a better academy than Millwall if they remain in a higher division because the young players are sold on quickly. Most fans want to watch the first team, not the U23s. It's a question of balancing short and long-term priorities and obviously capital investment has to be strategic and has a longer timeframe.
The access argument is a good case in point regarding priorities. The fact is that the 2015 permission established that the club could use Sparrows Lane for everything the football club currently has permission to build on its site and everything it said CACT needed. I don't doubt that the second access via the rugby site is desirable, but it is not necessary for CAFC - the 2015 permission established that definitively. That's really the point of the planning process. So the club cannot now argue that it needed the second access - and if it does it is not for professional football. Hence it does not seem to me a priority, with the club in League One.
Some of this argument does come down to the club communicating with fans as if they were 14 years of age, which is a problem specific to both this and the Jimenez regime. But an advantage of that to the regime is concealment, which is why they have to be questioned.
Magennis is useful, but just don't think he's good enough to go up with as a main striker. As to whom we could get in, I've got no idea what our budget might be. Assuming Magennis cost 100k, I think you could probably get better for not much more. I'm afraid my knowledge of league one strikers isn't that sensational to give you names.
While I'm aware that strikers will cost more money, we've picked up really good players in other positions (Caskey, Pearce, JDS, Holmes, Clarke, possibly Reeves and Marshall) so I believe it should be possible to get a reasonable striker too.
Don't we know that Wigan expect £1m for Will Grigg? If so I am not sure he is ten times better than Josh, in fact i am not sure he is better at all.
I'm sorry I don't have as much confidence as you do in the buying capabilities of this regime. What we know from the SCP title winning regime is that you do your business as early as possible in summer, having lined targets up in advance, and that applies to strikers more than most. This summer we seemed to have learnt that lesson, and then things gummed up again. We started the job but we did not finish it.
Anyway as far as I am concerned Josh is a great player at this level so I am always going to defend him.
Central .. Sarr/Lennon/Bauer/Pearce/Konsa .. midfield ... Kashi/Forster- Caskey/Dijkstiel/Clarke/Reeves/Marshall/Holmes ...
possibly only at full back ( Page will soon be fit, but is he good enough ? .. and Konsa fits in well at right back) and definitely up front are we possibly lacking .... (and it is a certainty that no striker/target man of real quality will be happy hanging around waiting for Magennis to miss the odd game) .. Jose Mourinho once opined in his Chelsea days, that 23/24 good players is enough, we are very close to that figure .. I am not of course suggesting that our squad is close to a Premier winning one, but you must get my drift
Personally, I want a settled 14/15 to rely on .. too many players can spoil group harmony and make life difficult for the manager .. you only had to look at the spirit amongst the players yesterday (admittedly after a win and a hat trick) to see that they have settled in well together .. too many outsiders could spoil this dynamic