Those that have met and spoken to Rolly say he clearly has mental issues, and if he was my family or a friend I would be trying to help him. Why they are not trying to help him is a mystery to me, and if they are, they are not doing a very good job.
His call to Talksport and the rant on the Club website is an embarrassment and I would have thought that some duty of care should have been afforded him by the Club. Perhaps the Fans Forum could ask what they are doing to help him? The Club do have some responsibility.
I don’t though. It is his weakness and we should do everything we can to exploit it.
We almost need a press officer to put the stories out into the Belgium press alluding to and questioning his mental health.
Any interaction with his associates seems to put his brain into tilt, any ideas as to how we can exploit this?
Roland Uit!
(Roland Out)
I think there may be a clue in the people he appoints. Yes men and women who are unlikely to spell out home truths and threaten their employment.
Bit tired of the constant digs at Jim White saying he is ‘best mates’ with Roland etc.
Jim White is not my favourite character in the world, but he has done what was necessary to get Roland talking publicly and ultimately to get Roland to expose and embarrass himself on more than one occasion.
Yes I know he got fooled by the whole “it’s happening” thing, but I think JW has helped our cause a lot more than people are giving him credit for.
Can I just clarify my statement about JW being 'bestie' with RD. You are right @cafctom JW has done a lot to highlight our case and I've welcomed that and been very encouraged by him (JW) keeping it in the public-eye when he could. However the interview on Wednesday seemed to me that, strangely, Simon Jordon was taking RD on and JW kept apologising for the vandalism caused, even though its not been proved it was CAFC fans, that was not what I was expecting. So I'm happy to state that on Wednesday that's how it came across to me, and not any of the other media attention he has given us. I hope that clarify's my use of the word 'bestie'
The only way that we are going to truly hurt RD is if it hits him in the pocket because that is what he covets most - and doing that to the Club is counter productive because he will just continue to sell our biggest assets i.e. our best young players.
Are there any of his other businesses that can successfully be undermined and targeted - in a legal way of course.
You may be right but I'm yet to be convinced that it's money that hurts him most - I believe it is more to do with damage to his self-perceived reputation.
100% right he cares not one jot about the money
If that were truly to be the case he would be investing in the Club. He does the compete opposite.
In undermining his other businesses both his bank balance and reputation as being a successful businessman is tarnished.
He is doing enough himself by issuing statements such as this one to damage everyone else's perception of him - and that's not just us.
Well, I'd put it like this. He cars about the money in so far as it is the quantitative measure of what a genius he is.(He needs such measures because he is low on empathy and normal human feelings which help people use qualitative measures to evaluate their happiness or satisfaction with something)
So he is pissed about the money to the extent that if he doesn't sell for above a certain amount, he diminishes the amount of personal profit he can show when he exits football (we know he was well up when he left Standard, and left them bereft). His goal is to leave with a decent profit and then proclaim "Look at all these business people who went into football and lost shedloads. See how I, Roland Duchatelet, have made money out of football, in the face of adversity both professional and personal. I am indeed a genius..."
Over colourful of course, but I am pretty sure now that this is how he thinks, how he is...
He's got his excuses in for not doing so though, so as long as he feels justified he at least keeps some dignity in his own eyes. Damn the EFL, other clubs, the fans...
I hope, because the alternative doesn't really bear thinking about.
Those that have met and spoken to Rolly say he clearly has mental issues, and if he was my family or a friend I would be trying to help him. Why they are not trying to help him is a mystery to me, and if they are, they are not doing a very good job.
His call to Talksport and the rant on the Club website is an embarrassment and I would have thought that some duty of care should have been afforded him by the Club. Perhaps the Fans Forum could ask what they are doing to help him? The Club do have some responsibility.
I don’t though. It is his weakness and we should do everything we can to exploit it.
We almost need a press officer to put the stories out into the Belgium press alluding to and questioning his mental health.
Any interaction with his associates seems to put his brain into tilt, any ideas as to how we can exploit this?
Roland Uit!
(Roland Out)
I think there may be a clue in the people he appoints. Yes men and women who are unlikely to spell out home truths and threaten their employment.
The care of duty, which specifically refers to mental issues, is law.
Raising the issues and having it recorded in the minutes of meeting should start ringing bells. Up to them what they do. Just one of the joys of management.
The only way that we are going to truly hurt RD is if it hits him in the pocket because that is what he covets most - and doing that to the Club is counter productive because he will just continue to sell our biggest assets i.e. our best young players.
Are there any of his other businesses that can successfully be undermined and targeted - in a legal way of course.
You may be right but I'm yet to be convinced that it's money that hurts him most - I believe it is more to do with damage to his self-perceived reputation.
100% right he cares not one jot about the money
If that were truly to be the case he would be investing in the Club. He does the compete opposite.
In undermining his other businesses both his bank balance and reputation as being a successful businessman is tarnished.
He is doing enough himself by issuing statements such as this one to damage everyone else's perception of him - and that's not just us.
Well, I'd put it like this. He cars about the money in so far as it is the quantitative measure of what a genius he is.(He needs such measures because he is low on empathy and normal human feelings which help people use qualitative measures to evaluate their happiness or satisfaction with something)
So he is pissed about the money to the extent that if he doesn't sell for above a certain amount, he diminishes the amount of personal profit he can show when he exits football (we know he was well up when he left Standard, and left them bereft). His goal is to leave with a decent profit and then proclaim "Look at all these business people who went into football and lost shedloads. See how I, Roland Duchatelet, have made money out of football, in the face of adversity both professional and personal. I am indeed a genius..."
Over colourful of course, but I am pretty sure now that this is how he thinks, how he is...
Agreed. And like many rich people, his parsimony makes every pound lost feel like a million. I think he’s horrified by the possibility that he might not come out on top.
The only way that we are going to truly hurt RD is if it hits him in the pocket because that is what he covets most - and doing that to the Club is counter productive because he will just continue to sell our biggest assets i.e. our best young players.
Are there any of his other businesses that can successfully be undermined and targeted - in a legal way of course.
You may be right but I'm yet to be convinced that it's money that hurts him most - I believe it is more to do with damage to his self-perceived reputation.
100% right he cares not one jot about the money
But he cares enough about the money that even in the midst of his mad rambling demand that the EFL take the club off his hands he wants to hang on to the land, stadium and training ground.
If he really didn't care one jot about the money he'd be prepared to sell the club and it's assets for a reasonable sum to anyone prepared to take on the operating losses who was able to pass the EFL fit and proper person test.
Disappointed in those comments. The protests are not about how the team is doing, they are about ridding ourselves of Roland. What happens on the pitch is of no consequence.
Thats what your words say, the reality is different.
Ive said it before on here, when the team is doing well then no one wants to protest, and Roland is put to the back of our minds, look at the attendance at the play off semi at our place as an example. Then as soon as we lose 3 or 4 games then the talk is of protests, so that is how it is interpreted, footy fans spitting their dummies when the club is doing badly. The protests had stopped and then he sells Grant and doesn't replace him and all of a sudden lets protest.
We either protest/boycott or we dont, its continual or it isn't, and Roland will spin it as results driven by a bunch of cry baby supporters, so the perception is, it is about results and that is how the general public and press see it, no matter what fans say on forum. A couple of my non Charlton mates commented on why the protests have stopped, then looked at the table, saw we are in the play offs and said 'oh I see why'
That is the reality, sadly we have let ourselves down.
In 2016 an Australian (oh the irony) study found that about one in five corporate executives are psychopaths – roughly the same rate as among prisoners.
It's a good job that Roland isn't a corporate executive otherwise we might think that he was the "one" in five.
Much as it pains me to do this, seeing as we're almost like brothers on here, but from one AA to another, it's "one in five corporate executives is a psychopath", it's the one that's being talked about, not the five.
Is there any mileage in setting up a ‘Roland is Bonkers’ website? Posting examples of his rants and actions thus having everything in one place. There could be a CARD page, ROT page, Getting to know the Nerwork page. Perhaps along the same lines as Airman Brown diaries ... just a thought
Roland Is Bonkers, what a great way of gently RIBbing him!
Charlton Athletics owner in a bizarre announcement asks League League to buy the League One club after several failed sales attempts.
Charlton Athletic Owner Roland Duchatelet is not the world's most popular gentleman among club fans, and it recently culminated with vandalism and burglary at his home.
He has since the end of 2017 tried to sell the club - unsuccessfully - and he believes that he has been opposed by the League Association, EFL.
Therefore, he now urges the bizarre connection to buy the club.
- Football has been the fastest growing industry in the UK in recent decades. But which foreign candidate will be willing to invest millions to get a chance to bring a club into the Premier League and at the same time accept vandalism against their property and privacy, wherever they live? Therefore, the owner now requires EFL to take over the football club, says the club's website.
EFL confirms that they have received an official request from the Duchatelet.
"The EFL can confirm that we have received a request from Charlton Athletics majority shareholder Roland Duchatelet, which we will review and subsequently respond appropriately," concludes EFL.
Roland Duchatelet bought the club back in 2014 when the team was in the Championship, but since then they have moved into League One, and the Duchatelet has lost millions.
Last year there was an agreement with an Australian consortium and, according to the Duchatelet, only one EFL approval was missing.
It turned out, however, that a little more was missing, and subsequently the owner rejected offers that he thought were too low.
Charlton is number five in League One.
I hope the bit about burglary at RD's home is a translation error...
It’s always been about the real estate. In his befuddled mind he has a delusional price tag in his head not realising how difficult, if not impossible, it would be to redevelop the Valley, The man is irrational to the extreme and all the signs were there at the beginning in not doing his due diligence. After the Spivs and their antics with the peninsula, I reckon old Roly thought he could go one better and pull it off. He showed just where his mindset was when he mentioned house prices in Kensington. He is a nutbag make no mistake but a dangerous one. He wants his pound of flesh and he has the resources to wait it out or ruin the club in doing so.
I reckon that's why he piled in to buy a distressed business without due diligence. He saw the real estate and not the football club. The Accrington owner just said that the problem with the real estate is that it comes attached to a football club. Roland on hears what he wants to hear.
Bit tired of the constant digs at Jim White saying he is ‘best mates’ with Roland etc.
Jim White is not my favourite character in the world, but he has done what was necessary to get Roland talking publicly and ultimately to get Roland to expose and embarrass himself on more than one occasion.
Yes I know he got fooled by the whole “it’s happening” thing, but I think JW has helped our cause a lot more than people are giving him credit for.
Agree completely. If it wasn't for Jim White, Roland wouldn't have been calling talksport and making himself look a fool the day before yesterdays ridiculous 'club' statement.
Lets remember RD ditch a fully funded scheme to upgrade the training ground, for one that including rooms (that looked remarkably like Travellodge/Premier Inn type rooms) and a swimming pool, the rooms to be used for overnight stays for youth teams etc. I think his idea was to build an hotel disguised as a training facility which he could upgrade to a full hotel and sell at a large profit, but he did not understand English planning laws.
Sounds like the “fit and proper” test is not working as it should be. With Roland’s previous form, there should have been enough warning bells for the EFL to decide he wasn’t fit and proper. His actions since 2014 have proved this, with his latest wheeze really taking the biscuit.
Sounds like the “fit and proper” test is not working as it should be. With Roland’s previous form, there should have been enough warning bells for the EFL to decide he wasn’t fit and proper. His actions since 2014 have proved this, with his latest wheeze really taking the biscuit.
Unfortunately you're way off beam.
It's been said on here many times before but the "fit and proper" test is to stop crooks and criminals owning football clubs. It's not there to ensure that people don't make bad decisions, bad appointments or replace centre forwards when they're sold.
The EFL can't force him to sell, and that has to be right. Whether there is anything else the EFL can do is a different matter, but holding any hope in the "fit and proper" test is just a red herring, in its current form.
I am all for "brainstorming" new ideas. In such exercises it is true quite literally nothing is deemed too "stupid".
It is a "behind closed door" exercise designed to remove the personal filters most people have before they release such random thinking into the public domain.
It is a process which then validates and revalidates any suggestion against the reality of considered opinion.
I find it troubling our beneficial owner appears to neither possess such personal or organisational filters.
We have another Laurel & Hardy moment. It is yet another fine mess.
I had drafted probably the longest post in my time on Charlton Life but in all honesty I tire of commenting on probably the most depressing examples of borderline corporate misfeasance I have ever witnessed.
The joke is becoming very old indeed. Just how many more times do we have to go through this farce.
Throughout the entire shambolic experience of the past 5yrs there is one very simple common factor which shines through; Indeed the beneficial owner proudly proclaims it at almost every opportunity. In what realm of fantasy does anyone think you can succeed at anything in making just a 2% commitment to overseeing a business working in a dynamic, fiercely competitive global billion pound industry.
It really is that simple. Such a grotesque failure of a personal & corporate duty of care directly correlates to the lack of industry & market knowledge, the absence of appropriate corporate oversight, totally inappropriate executive & operational appointments, the resultant abject operational and financial performance and now the increasing bizarre outbursts.
The latest outburst has at least saved you from ploughing through my detailed speculation on why we have travelled the journey we have over the past 12-18 months.
I had little to add to "the Vandalism" debate though M.Duchatelet's, once again, immature response betrays the very nature of his thinking and judgements which it seems may have prompted such acts of frustration.
In principle I am not in favour of such action. In truth graffiti, in such circumstances, ultimately defines an inability to influence the decisions which impact our lives. It is meant to attract attention, and often to be offensive. RD, in this instance, is the victim.
In itself it is normally counter productive but whether designed to provoke a response or not it seems we can rely on the beneficial owner to rise to the challenge.
Overall however the consensus has to be he is a victim of his own making.
In what alternative universe does anybody choose to step into English football with the intent to use a pan European club network and not understand it is a Global Industry, with global owners intent on investing considerable sums in, employing established and experienced professionals fully committed to, fully participating in a global brand.
In the real world It displayed an appalling and embarrassing level of due diligence, understanding and neglect.
In the real world I regret to inform M. Duchatelet and the club have, I suggest, acted in direct breach of EFL regulations.
No Club, either by itself, its servants or agents, shall
by any means whatsoever unfairly criticise, disparage, belittle or discredit
any other Club or The League or in either case any of its directors, officers,
employees or agents.
The club statement* is thus reckless, unprofessional, inaccurate and unhelpful in every way imaginable.
It embodies all we have seen since Jan 2014. It is about the interests of one man and one man alone.
I propose not to waste any more than 2% of my time on the individual concerned.
* Attaching a personal profile to such a corporate statement is beyond extraordinary. Any communications professional involved should seriously consider their position.
My interest is the club, its staff, its clubhouse management, its players and all those involved in the academy.
If the beneficial owner is serious in his intent to depart then he for once in his life needs to communicate with clarity and certainty. Just simply state your price to walk away and your rationale for such price. Everything else is irrelevant.
The confusing utterances on Talksport suggest it is wrapped around the clubs freehold properties. We need to know the mans understanding of what he thinks he bought and the realistic valuations of the related assets.
If based on London land prices let us see 3 independent professional valuations based on the current allowed usage of the land and the facilities thereon. Despite Idle Hans excellent assessment elsewhere the last published accounts do not provide the level of clarity needed.
Any speculative value based on normal commercial stadium use or land development has to be turned aside.
The reality is it is not a question of valuation but the degree to which this vendor will "hold hostage" the club assets to secure the greatest recovery of debt.
M. Duchatelet there is no originality of thought here. South London has danced through the curse of too many who have sought to use & abuse the real estate of our football clubs in their own interest, from Hammam at Wimbledon, Noades at Crystal Palace, even concerns with the environs at Millwall and of course our own Messrs Cash, Slater and Jiminez.
I had and have no interest in any of them as individuals, their nationality, their gender, their personal circumstances or personality traits beyond how they perform(ed) in "serving the organisation(s)" they represent(ed).
We all know there are times in ones life when we recognise the organisations we associate with no longer reflect our personal or professional values. Today I quite simply have had enough of the rambling, self obsessed, self serving, miserable nonsense which continues to emanate from this regime.
It is time for one of us to go.
I am mindful just over 25 years ago small numbers, then hundreds and ultimately thousands fought against all the odds to restore the club to its natural home. They did not due so to assuage the losses of a self important delusional owner who by his actions and words clearly has more money than common sense.
As then I am sure none of us have an appetite for "tilting at windmills" but is there a genuine appetite across the fan base to explore facilitating and driving change today. In very different times and very different circumstances is there a real appetite for the fight?
In my brainstorming exercise
In recognition of over 60 years of the collective experience in following the club I would be prepared to pledge a minimum of £2500 toward securing clear and free and unencumbered title to the land at The Valley and Sparrows Lane to ensure its continued use by Charlton Athletic Football Club in perpetuity.
It would be a "not for profit" investment.
I would have no interest in running a football club.
I would have every interest in joining with others to secure the facilities, to offer secure tenure to those interested in running our football club, at entirely their own financial risk, while meeting the full operational, maintenance and development costs associated with such facilities.
Such a "franchisee" would have no automatic fall back on any other use of such secure tenure or its use as collateral in securing any financial services.
I am just one small voice offering to take one small step forward. 6000 such single or multiple steps will produce £15mn*.
I face a simple choice do I step forward or do I step away.
Grapevine49
*Such a figure in no way asserts any valuation of the freehold assets of the club.
Comments
I hope, because the alternative doesn't really bear thinking about.
He has got a number of things wrong.
Roland was lying about the "vandalism"
Just like he lies about everything else.
There is so far ...no sufficient proof or valid enough evidence that a group of Charlton supporters commited the crime of vandalising his property.
Roland is a crook-ed and tactical businessman that was just put on this earth to piss everyone off.
It is not what it appears on the surface. He is not a mad but gentle soul.
Raising the issues and having it recorded in the minutes of meeting should start ringing bells. Up to them what they do. Just one of the joys of management.
The start of a good storey for the press as well.
Section on fantasy football coming up next.
I keep thinking that I'm going to find that, in Belgium, 28 February is equivalent to April Fools' Day.
Then as soon as we lose 3 or 4 games then the talk is of protests, so that is how it is interpreted, footy fans spitting their dummies when the club is doing badly.
The protests had stopped and then he sells Grant and doesn't replace him and all of a sudden lets protest.
A couple of my non Charlton mates commented on why the protests have stopped, then looked at the table, saw we are in the play offs and said 'oh I see why'
Roland Is Bonkers, what a great way of gently RIBbing him!
The protests have rattled him but nobody knows how he will respond.
It's reached the Danish media https://www.bold.dk/fodbold/nyheder/charlton-ejer-i-bizart-opraab-koeb-klubben-efl/
Google translation:
Charlton Athletics owner in a bizarre announcement asks League League to buy the League One club after several failed sales attempts.
Charlton Athletic Owner Roland Duchatelet is not the world's most popular gentleman among club fans, and it recently culminated with vandalism and burglary at his home. He has since the end of 2017 tried to sell the club - unsuccessfully - and he believes that he has been opposed by the League Association, EFL. Therefore, he now urges the bizarre connection to buy the club. - Football has been the fastest growing industry in the UK in recent decades. But which foreign candidate will be willing to invest millions to get a chance to bring a club into the Premier League and at the same time accept vandalism against their property and privacy, wherever they live? Therefore, the owner now requires EFL to take over the football club, says the club's website. EFL confirms that they have received an official request from the Duchatelet. "The EFL can confirm that we have received a request from Charlton Athletics majority shareholder Roland Duchatelet, which we will review and subsequently respond appropriately," concludes EFL. Roland Duchatelet bought the club back in 2014 when the team was in the Championship, but since then they have moved into League One, and the Duchatelet has lost millions. Last year there was an agreement with an Australian consortium and, according to the Duchatelet, only one EFL approval was missing. It turned out, however, that a little more was missing, and subsequently the owner rejected offers that he thought were too low. Charlton is number five in League One.
I hope the bit about burglary at RD's home is a translation error...
It's been said on here many times before but the "fit and proper" test is to stop crooks and criminals owning football clubs. It's not there to ensure that people don't make bad decisions, bad appointments or replace centre forwards when they're sold.
The EFL can't force him to sell, and that has to be right. Whether there is anything else the EFL can do is a different matter, but holding any hope in the "fit and proper" test is just a red herring, in its current form.
I am all for "brainstorming" new ideas. In such exercises it is true quite literally nothing is deemed too "stupid".
It is a "behind closed door" exercise designed to remove the personal filters most people have before they release such random thinking into the public domain.
It is a process which then validates and revalidates any suggestion against the reality of considered opinion.
I find it troubling our beneficial owner appears to neither possess such personal or organisational filters.
We have another Laurel & Hardy moment. It is yet another fine mess.
I had drafted probably the longest post in my time on Charlton Life but in all honesty I tire of commenting on probably the most depressing examples of borderline corporate misfeasance I have ever witnessed.
The joke is becoming very old indeed. Just how many more times do we have to go through this farce.
Throughout the entire shambolic experience of the past 5yrs there is one very simple common factor which shines through; Indeed the beneficial owner proudly proclaims it at almost every opportunity. In what realm of fantasy does anyone think you can succeed at anything in making just a 2% commitment to overseeing a business working in a dynamic, fiercely competitive global billion pound industry.
It really is that simple. Such a grotesque failure of a personal & corporate duty of care directly correlates to the lack of industry & market knowledge, the absence of appropriate corporate oversight, totally inappropriate executive & operational appointments, the resultant abject operational and financial performance and now the increasing bizarre outbursts.
The latest outburst has at least saved you from ploughing through my detailed speculation on why we have travelled the journey we have over the past 12-18 months.
I had little to add to "the Vandalism" debate though M.Duchatelet's, once again, immature response betrays the very nature of his thinking and judgements which it seems may have prompted such acts of frustration.
In principle I am not in favour of such action. In truth graffiti, in such circumstances, ultimately defines an inability to influence the decisions which impact our lives. It is meant to attract attention, and often to be offensive. RD, in this instance, is the victim.
In itself it is normally counter productive but whether designed to provoke a response or not it seems we can rely on the beneficial owner to rise to the challenge.
Overall however the consensus has to be he is a victim of his own making.
In what alternative universe does anybody choose to step into English football with the intent to use a pan European club network and not understand it is a Global Industry, with global owners intent on investing considerable sums in, employing established and experienced professionals fully committed to, fully participating in a global brand.
In the real world It displayed an appalling and embarrassing level of due diligence, understanding and neglect.
In the real world I regret to inform M. Duchatelet and the club have, I suggest, acted in direct breach of EFL regulations.
EFL Membership Regulations Section 2 Regulation 3.5
No Club, either by itself, its servants or agents, shall by any means whatsoever unfairly criticise, disparage, belittle or discredit any other Club or The League or in either case any of its directors, officers, employees or agents.
The club statement* is thus reckless, unprofessional, inaccurate and unhelpful in every way imaginable.
It embodies all we have seen since Jan 2014. It is about the interests of one man and one man alone.
I propose not to waste any more than 2% of my time on the individual concerned.
* Attaching a personal profile to such a corporate statement is beyond extraordinary. Any communications professional involved should seriously consider their position.
My interest is the club, its staff, its clubhouse management, its players and all those involved in the academy.
If the beneficial owner is serious in his intent to depart then he for once in his life needs to communicate with clarity and certainty. Just simply state your price to walk away and your rationale for such price. Everything else is irrelevant.
The confusing utterances on Talksport suggest it is wrapped around the clubs freehold properties. We need to know the mans understanding of what he thinks he bought and the realistic valuations of the related assets.
If based on London land prices let us see 3 independent professional valuations based on the current allowed usage of the land and the facilities thereon. Despite Idle Hans excellent assessment elsewhere the last published accounts do not provide the level of clarity needed.
Any speculative value based on normal commercial stadium use or land development has to be turned aside.
The reality is it is not a question of valuation but the degree to which this vendor will "hold hostage" the club assets to secure the greatest recovery of debt.
M. Duchatelet there is no originality of thought here. South London has danced through the curse of too many who have sought to use & abuse the real estate of our football clubs in their own interest, from Hammam at Wimbledon, Noades at Crystal Palace, even concerns with the environs at Millwall and of course our own Messrs Cash, Slater and Jiminez.
I had and have no interest in any of them as individuals, their nationality, their gender, their personal circumstances or personality traits beyond how they perform(ed) in "serving the organisation(s)" they represent(ed).
We all know there are times in ones life when we recognise the organisations we associate with no longer reflect our personal or professional values. Today I quite simply have had enough of the rambling, self obsessed, self serving, miserable nonsense which continues to emanate from this regime.
It is time for one of us to go.
I am mindful just over 25 years ago small numbers, then hundreds and ultimately thousands fought against all the odds to restore the club to its natural home. They did not due so to assuage the losses of a self important delusional owner who by his actions and words clearly has more money than common sense.
As then I am sure none of us have an appetite for "tilting at windmills" but is there a genuine appetite across the fan base to explore facilitating and driving change today. In very different times and very different circumstances is there a real appetite for the fight?
In my brainstorming exercise
In recognition of over 60 years of the collective experience in following the club I would be prepared to pledge a minimum of £2500 toward securing clear and free and unencumbered title to the land at The Valley and Sparrows Lane to ensure its continued use by Charlton Athletic Football Club in perpetuity.
It would be a "not for profit" investment.
I would have no interest in running a football club.
I would have every interest in joining with others to secure the facilities, to offer secure tenure to those interested in running our football club, at entirely their own financial risk, while meeting the full operational, maintenance and development costs associated with such facilities.
Such a "franchisee" would have no automatic fall back on any other use of such secure tenure or its use as collateral in securing any financial services.
I am just one small voice offering to take one small step forward. 6000 such single or multiple steps will produce £15mn*.
I face a simple choice do I step forward or do I step away.
Grapevine49
*Such a figure in no way asserts any valuation of the freehold assets of the club.