You can’t rule out that an abandoned Valley might eventually secure consent for residential development but it is very far from bring prime land in London terms. Duchatelet has a scheme to justify his value but it has never been tested with Greenwich and it’s obvious overdevelopment.
The site has severe access problems - the level crossing, the turn in Floyd Road, Ransom Walk and the chalk cliffs. There are soil issues and a major sewer. There is a bloody great football stadium to demolish and there is the current designation of the land as community open space to overcome.
All of these things limit the number of houses you can build and the council, even if it cooperated, would want a large element to be social and/or affordable housing. Most important, development has costs of itself. The profit isn’t the difference between the price of the land and the sale price of the homes. It’s that figure net of all the other costs.
Even if you could build 400 properties you’d struggle to justify spending £50m on the land given all the uncertainties that lie in the way, even if you had it. And there is no scenario I can see that someone doesn’t have to pay the ex-directors £7m on top.
Of course, if a ticket is available in this lottery for £1 most people would snap it up. Elliott may well have bought one. But so what?
Yes all of the above is correct but is it not also correct that there would be a far greater chance of getting Greenwich Council to the table if there is no club associated with the ground ? I have no idea what if anything can be done to force the issue as at the end of the day it isn't down to the EFL to force owners to supply requested information if they do not wish to do so. If an owner wants their club out of the league then it is their prerogative I suppose. It just makes sense to me that this has always been the end game plan
I agree with that, but they would have to force the club out of business as it would be rescued from any administration. I also think the EFL Itself would struggle to survive such an outcome. The pressure to regulate it would be overwhelming. And the heat on Farnell and others would be intense.
Would the club being forced out of the league not force it out of business? What is in it for ESI to keep going and pay wages when they have to find somebody who will commit to pay £50m plus for the club. We all know this is very unlikely to happen. Why did Nimer instantly do nothing when the club was in such a hurry to be bought when he bought it? Why couldn't it have waited to now with serious due dilligence which reflected the price.
But you know well enough that Roland isn't all there. The question is more whether he believes he can get top dollar for the assets without the club. That is surely all that matters. Do you honestly think he doesn't? All of his comments and his valuation seems to suggest he does.
The choice is a very substantial cash payment now against a fantasy. Depends how much he likes money. You can’t argue that getting it is his main concern and then that he won’t prefer getting it to not getting it. He’s never getting it from ESI.
You can’t rule out that an abandoned Valley might eventually secure consent for residential development but it is very far from bring prime land in London terms. Duchatelet has a scheme to justify his value but it has never been tested with Greenwich and it’s obvious overdevelopment.
The site has severe access problems for vehicles in terms of large scale residential redevelopment - the level crossing, the width restriction in Church Lane, the turn in Floyd Road, Ransom Walk and the chalk cliffs. There are soil issues and a major sewer. There is a bloody great football stadium to demolish and there is the current designation of the land as community open space to overcome.
All of these things limit the number of homes you can build and the council, even if it cooperated, would want a large element to be social and/or affordable housing, which it can make a condition. Most important, development has costs of itself. These include fixed upfront payments in respect of additional services needed from the council, as well as materials, plant, labour, legals etc. The profit, to be shared with any builder, isn’t the difference between the price of the land and the sale price of the homes. It’s that latter figure net of all the other costs.
Even if you could build 400 properties you’d struggle to justify spending £50m on the land given all the uncertainties that lie in the way, even if you had it. And there is no scenario I can see that someone doesn’t have to pay the ex-directors £7m on top. They must be paid if CAFC goes out of business. If the club cannot pay then Roland must.
Of course, if a ticket is available in this lottery for £1 most people would snap it up. Elliott may well have bought one. But so what?
How much would a 2 bed apartment go for in Charlton? 350k-400k?
You sell 400 of those you're looking at 140-160m. Even with all the other costs you mention, that'd surely make a 50m or 57m outlay worthwhile?
This would be interesting to get your thoughts on. Are the loans to ex directors worded well enough to cover the eventuality of the club ceasing to exist? I mean, if the money is payable if we get to the Premier League, could it not be argued that they shall never be payable as we can never get to the Premier League if we don't exist?
This would be interesting to get your thoughts on. Are the loans to ex directors worded well enough to cover the eventuality of the club ceasing to exist? I mean, if the money is payable if we get to the Premier League, could it not be argued that they shall never be payable as we can never get to the Premier League if we don't exist?
That’s the whole point of the charges. The wording went through multiple lawyers representing the seven individuals. It would be payable.
This would be interesting to get your thoughts on. Are the loans to ex directors worded well enough to cover the eventuality of the club ceasing to exist? I mean, if the money is payable if we get to the Premier League, could it not be argued that they shall never be payable as we can never get to the Premier League if we don't exist?
That’s the whole point of the charges. The wording went through multiple lawyers representing the seven individuals. It would be payable.
So if we go into admin, the charges are against the assets rather than the owner or the club? I wonder why Roland isn't terrified of us going into admin. This aspect worries me, but he is mad!
You can’t rule out that an abandoned Valley might eventually secure consent for residential development but it is very far from bring prime land in London terms. Duchatelet has a scheme to justify his value but it has never been tested with Greenwich and it’s obvious overdevelopment.
The site has severe access problems for vehicles in terms of large scale residential redevelopment - the level crossing, the width restriction in Church Lane, the turn in Floyd Road, Ransom Walk and the chalk cliffs. There are soil issues and a major sewer. There is a bloody great football stadium to demolish and there is the current designation of the land as community open space to overcome.
All of these things limit the number of homes you can build and the council, even if it cooperated, would want a large element to be social and/or affordable housing, which it can make a condition. Most important, development has costs of itself. These include fixed upfront payments in respect of additional services needed from the council, as well as materials, plant, labour, legals etc. The profit, to be shared with any builder, isn’t the difference between the price of the land and the sale price of the homes. It’s that latter figure net of all the other costs.
Even if you could build 400 properties you’d struggle to justify spending £50m on the land given all the uncertainties that lie in the way, even if you had it. And there is no scenario I can see that someone doesn’t have to pay the ex-directors £7m on top. They must be paid if CAFC goes out of business. If the club cannot pay then Roland must.
Of course, if a ticket is available in this lottery for £1 most people would snap it up. Elliott may well have bought one. But so what?
How much would a 2 bed apartment go for in Charlton? 350k-400k?
You sell 400 of those you're looking at 140-160m. Even with all the other costs you mention, that'd surely make a 50m or 57m outlay worthwhile?
No, is the short answer. Too much uncertainty and not enough profit. And you’re overlooking that a big chunk can’t be sold at market price, and some not at all because they would be reserved for social rent.
This would be interesting to get your thoughts on. Are the loans to ex directors worded well enough to cover the eventuality of the club ceasing to exist? I mean, if the money is payable if we get to the Premier League, could it not be argued that they shall never be payable as we can never get to the Premier League if we don't exist?
That’s the whole point of the charges. The wording went through multiple lawyers representing the seven individuals. It would be payable.
So if we go into admin, the charges are against the assets rather than the owner or the club? I wonder why Roland isn't terrified of us going into admin. This aspect worries me, but he is mad!
The charges are over all three of the “Charlton companies”, two of which are still owned by RD. The debt is held by CAFC Ltd. So if CAFC goes into administration the first £7m of assets go to pay the ex-directors. If there is not £7m then the debt falls on the owner of the other companies, i.e. Roland, is my understanding. It’s a peculiar situation, which is why the sale of CAFC Ltd by Baton 2010 Ltd required permission from the loan holders.
This would be interesting to get your thoughts on. Are the loans to ex directors worded well enough to cover the eventuality of the club ceasing to exist? I mean, if the money is payable if we get to the Premier League, could it not be argued that they shall never be payable as we can never get to the Premier League if we don't exist?
That’s the whole point of the charges. The wording went through multiple lawyers representing the seven individuals. It would be payable.
So if we go into admin, the charges are against the assets rather than the owner or the club? I wonder why Roland isn't terrified of us going into admin. This aspect worries me, but he is mad!
The charges are over all three of the “Charlton companies”, two of which are still owned by RD. The debt is held by CAFC Ltd. So if CAFC goes into administration the first £7m of assets go to pay the ex-directors. If there is not £7m then the debt falls on the owner of the other companies, i.e. Roland, is my understanding. It’s a peculiar situation, which is why the sale of CAFC Ltd by Baton 2010 Ltd required permission from the loan holders.
RD is a long standing respectable businessman. No way did he dream this up with Nimer to con someone. He had too much to lose......his reputation for one.
My theory is that both Nimer & Southall were unknowingly conning each other. How or why I have no idea.......but I don't think RD is instrumental in it.
I think RD came into it with naive but honest intentions about running some sort of Corinthian football club that avoided the worst excesses of the modern game. No agents, barely any transfer fees and mangers were on a carousel. He then handed the day to day running over to idiots and it was impossible to get back. Enormous and justified protests ensued because, frankly, he fucked with the wrong club.
He then wanted to back out of the situation but get the money he invested back, that was beyond the pale for most apart from this entity called ESI who would do a deal for the club and some cryptic additional deal for the property, that obviously all suited RD and the rest is our current history.
No idea where this ends but our recent history is comedy laced with tragedy.
You are brave saying the first Sentence, but that is 100% correct. It was a utopian dream but he had a good season at Standard then sold the best 5 players; hence the revolting fans. An academy football farm was his way of running things and we would enjoy a player for a season and then wave goodbye to the next premier star.
Muttley is like a dog with a bone, and I commend him for that.
Duchatelet owns the club and Training ground so is still the main man and Southall was a 10 a penny leech that saw an opportunity with the Poundland sale.
Whatever Roland Duchatelet motivations now or in recent times were, I don't see any working connection with Nimer, Southall etc. I was 100% in favour of the demonstrations but the graffiti on his property may have bought the revenge part of his personality out. I still believe his love of the process of making money is his Raison d'être more that the splashing the cash on a new suit, dentistry or buying a new pair of shoes.
After saying Duchatelet was or could turn spiteful 3 years ago some big hitters on CL disagreed saying it was just about the money ?
We may find out soon if Hell hath no fury like an old multi millionaire scorned.
More of a Shakespearean tragedy than a comedy now, unless you are a Millwall or Palace fan.
You can’t rule out that an abandoned Valley might eventually secure consent for residential development but it is very far from bring prime land in London terms. Duchatelet has a scheme to justify his value but it has never been tested with Greenwich and it’s obvious overdevelopment.
The site has severe access problems for vehicles in terms of large scale residential redevelopment - the level crossing, the width restriction in Church Lane, the turn in Floyd Road, Ransom Walk and the chalk cliffs. There are soil issues and a major sewer. There is a bloody great football stadium to demolish and there is the current designation of the land as community open space to overcome.
All of these things limit the number of homes you can build and the council, even if it cooperated, would want a large element to be social and/or affordable housing, which it can make a condition. Most important, development has costs of itself. These include fixed upfront payments in respect of additional services needed from the council, as well as materials, plant, labour, legals etc. The profit, to be shared with any builder, isn’t the difference between the price of the land and the sale price of the homes. It’s that latter figure net of all the other costs.
Even if you could build 400 properties you’d struggle to justify spending £50m on the land given all the uncertainties that lie in the way, even if you had it. And there is no scenario I can see that someone doesn’t have to pay the ex-directors £7m on top. They must be paid if CAFC goes out of business. If the club cannot pay then Roland must.
Of course, if a ticket is available in this lottery for £1 most people would snap it up. Elliott may well have bought one. But so what?
A couple of points, it may well be that the Valley has restricted access, soil and a sewer but that definitely wouldn’t even hold up building apartments, after all a bloody great football stadium got built there quite recently with all the present access and other problems. Gasworks by the dome and at Beckton had soil issues both been built on. The Shard and surrounding buildings, given the size of that development was an absolute logistical nightmare of a site but up it all went. For £50m you get the Valley, admittedly not Chelsea but London nonetheless, with a main line station good transport links, extensive shopping and recreation in the immediate area. There is, even without building on the steep sides, quite a few acres of land to erect flats. For the size of a large house you can comfortably build, over 4 floors , 8 units, (probably more). Loads of space to easily break even on. Upton Park yielded more than £50m, I think the valley is a bigger site. Also for the £50m you also get Sparrows Lane, a beautiful piece of land. That could have the same type of building as the Hollies or maybe something more profitable per Sq m.The Hollies which is walking distance from the training ground used to a childrens home with a large amount of land. That got built on despite opposition from many residents of the borough. I think Greenwich Council probably won’t have much say in the end of any redevelopment of both of these sites, they might in the first instance oppose planning but there are higher places to go and developer do. As for social/affordable housing there are ways round that, Camden council came to an agreement with the developers of the Middlesex Hospital site, there ain’t no social housing there. Affordable housing? Affordable once and probably not to many then. Elliot may well hold the winning lottery ticket. I think Duchatelet despite being all the things we know he is, he is also someone who knows potential and after just a few years of purchasing a football club he stands get his money back and more from a property developer. Personally I think we are in a perfect storm here with the pandemic added into the mix.
You can’t rule out that an abandoned Valley might eventually secure consent for residential development but it is very far from bring prime land in London terms. Duchatelet has a scheme to justify his value but it has never been tested with Greenwich and it’s obvious overdevelopment.
The site has severe access problems for vehicles in terms of large scale residential redevelopment - the level crossing, the width restriction in Church Lane, the turn in Floyd Road, Ransom Walk and the chalk cliffs. There are soil issues and a major sewer. There is a bloody great football stadium to demolish and there is the current designation of the land as community open space to overcome.
All of these things limit the number of homes you can build and the council, even if it cooperated, would want a large element to be social and/or affordable housing, which it can make a condition. Most important, development has costs of itself. These include fixed upfront payments in respect of additional services needed from the council, as well as materials, plant, labour, legals etc. The profit, to be shared with any builder, isn’t the difference between the price of the land and the sale price of the homes. It’s that latter figure net of all the other costs.
Even if you could build 400 properties you’d struggle to justify spending £50m on the land given all the uncertainties that lie in the way, even if you had it. And there is no scenario I can see that someone doesn’t have to pay the ex-directors £7m on top. They must be paid if CAFC goes out of business. If the club cannot pay then Roland must.
Of course, if a ticket is available in this lottery for £1 most people would snap it up. Elliott may well have bought one. But so what?
How much would a 2 bed apartment go for in Charlton? 350k-400k?
You sell 400 of those you're looking at 140-160m. Even with all the other costs you mention, that'd surely make a 50m or 57m outlay worthwhile?
No, is the short answer. Too much uncertainty and not enough profit. And you’re overlooking that a big chunk can’t be sold at market price, and some not at all because they would be reserved for social rent.
Small point, but the affordable housing also has a gross value. Maybe about £100k-£150k per unit for the rented homes - funded by a housing association or a local authority.
£50m equates to about £15m per hectare at the Valley. That is not an unreasonable land valuation (with planning) when compared to resi and mixed use schemes I am aware of not too far away, all with a significant quantum of affordable housing and many not dissimilar in scale and nature to the development Duchatelet probably envisages for the Valley. Of course he doesn't have planning.
However, If you put all the barriers to one side (notably the abnormal ground costs at the Valley - topography, demolition, utilities etc - and whether the access constraints can support in excess of 150 homes per hectare) and for a moment go with his way of thinking that there is a viable route to releasing inherent value in the land, and that value is £50m, one major factor for me is time.
No rational developer would make an unconditional acquisition of the Valley, not at £50m. It would be an option subject to planning with the income coming to Duchatelet once planning is secured. I think there are few if any reputable UK developers who would take an option on the Valley at the moment given how politically toxic that would be, as an aside. He could of course seek to secure planning himself, but at significant cost and risk, and he won't see any income until he is the other side of a planning consent / JR etc and that in itself will require a negotiation, not a process he is noted for expediting.
But let's just assume everything falls his way - the club goes out of business, he finds a purchaser, the site costs are not excessive, he secures change of use and planning consent for the scale of scheme required to deliver a £50m residual value. How long will all of that take?
Being realistic on two matters - 1. he is never getting £50m from ESI or whoever inherits that deal, and - 2. to get his £50m from the land, securing a consent at the Valley will be an extremely protracted planning process, quite likely going to appeal if Greenwich refuse consent or judicial review in the unlikely event they approve it.
He is probably looking at something like at least six years for all the events and processes he needs to go his way to work through to a (for him) positive conclusion and cash in the bank. In my experience it can very often take three to four years or so for a sizeable scheme to get to committee, even in favourable commercial and political circumstances, never mind effectively being contingent on a professional football club going out of business - and these are schemes with experienced developers already in place. Add to that at least a year to 18 months for an appeal, then any subsequent legal processes and another 6-12 months to conclude a Section 106 agreement once he has his consent.
Assuming his average cost of capital is 6%, the £50m is worth about £35m today, and about £33m this time last year when the Australians were trying to close a deal with with him, less the ex-directors' loans. Wasn't £33m roughly what he had agreed with the Aussies?
Given the huge development risks involved, 6% is a very generous discount rate depending what side of the deal you sit on. If you increase it to 12%, which is roughly the annual rate of return a property developer would expect on average, his £50m is worth about £25m today, and this isn't an 'average' scheme.
Electorally for Greenwich Labour, leaving the site empty or putting tough conditions on any planning application would be a winner, add to that City Hall (regardless who’s mayor, it’ll be Khan anyway) won’t allow the development without a fight over social housing. That piles cost on the £50m site purchase, £10s of millions of site prep, the Community Infrastructure Levy will be brutal if RBG allow development, TfL and Network Rail will want a pound of flesh, as will Thames Water for going near their main sewer.
I don't think Roland subscribes to the saying "Time's Money", and would not be put off by the prospect of waiting years to get planning permission.
Why do I say this? Well, I give you the 13 year history behind his new boutique hotel, Hof van Stayen, https://www.hofvanstayen.be/, situated down a lane opposite the Sint-Truiden stadium complex. It used to be called Blavier Farm. It gives you a flavour of how Duchâtelet appears to assume planning laws are there to be bent, if not broken.
On 18th June 2006, Roland's company, NV Stayen purchased Blavier Farm, with a view to converting this historical farmstead for use as a STVV player hostel and carpark. This area had an agriculture designation in the Sint-Truiden strategic plan.
In October 2006, Duchâtelet contested the Sint-Truiden municipal election. At that time he was not living in Sint-Truiden, in fact he lived on Eduard Van Steenbergenlaan, Deurne, Antwerp. One of the key qualifying requirements to run as a municipal election candidate is to be a local resident. However, in the case of Duchâtelet, because he owned a house at Staaien, right next to the stadium of STVV, he was allowed to stand for VLD-Vivant regardless.
On 19th May 2008, during a council meeting, Councillor Filip Moers (SP.A), requested that Duchâtelet (Open VLD), leave the chamber while the provincial spatial implementation plan (PRUP), giving demarcation of the city limits, was discussed. This was significant because Duchâtelet hoped that Blavier Farm would be brought within the city limits, thereby offering greater development options. It would seem that there were insinuations of deceit and conflict of interest aimed at Duchâtelet by Moers. These insinuations were rebuffed by Duchâtelet. "I am rich, if I want I can swim in chocolate, so why would I steal another bar of chocolate'" he said.
On 20th August 2008 mayor Ludwig Vandenhove (SP.A) and councillor Filip Moers (SP.A) again filed a complaint against Duchâtelet (Open VLD). Duchâtelet refused to leave the chamber during the recent Council meeting, when a vote was taken on the demarcation of the city limits. The quarrel about demarcation has been dragging on for many months now. The new PRUP stipulated that Duchâtelet's Blavier Farm was outside the city limits. Vandenhove and Moers therefore accused him of a conflict of interest and didn't want him to take part in the vote on the plan. Duchâtelet insisted he had a right to take part in the in the discussion and the vote and only when former mayor Jef Cleerens decided to postpone the vote until the next council meeting, did Duchâtelet leave the meeting. Duchâtelet said, "Filip Moers acted as if I was obliged to leave the chamber, and this is a serious mistake, so the Hasselt prosecutor's office will receive a complaint from me against Ludwig Vandenhove and Moers.
On 5th October 2009, Blavier Farm was listed as a building of historical interest. This is equivalent to a Listed Building in the UK - however, by 2019 little more than the front facade and one gable-end was original.
The building was left empty for much of the following decade, while Duchâtelet tried to get various unsuitable schemes through planning. It was occupied by squatters; there was a fire; it fell into disrepair.
Eventually, permission was granted for a 25 twin bedroom boutique hotel with meeting rooms, suitable for business conventions, weddings, etc, and it finally opened June 2019.
I don't think Roland subscribes to the saying "Time's Money", and would not be put off by the prospect of waiting years to get planning permission.
Why do I say this? Well, I give you the 13 year history behind his new boutique hotel, Hof van Stayen, https://www.hofvanstayen.be/, situated down a lane opposite the Sint-Truiden stadium complex. It used to be called Blavier Farm. It gives you a flavour of how Duchâtelet appears to assume planning laws are there to be bent, if not broken.
On 18th June 2006, Roland's company, NV Stayen purchased Blavier Farm, with a view to converting this historical farmstead for use as a STVV player hostel and carpark. This area had an agriculture designation in the Sint-Truiden strategic plan.
In October 2006, Duchâtelet contested the Sint-Truiden municipal election. At that time he was not living in Sint-Truiden, in fact he lived on Eduard Van Steenbergenlaan, Deurne, Antwerp. One of the key qualifying requirements to run as a municipal election candidate is to be a local resident. However, in the case of Duchâtelet, because he owned a house at Staaien, right next to the stadium of STVV, he was allowed to stand for VLD-Vivant regardless.
On 19th May 2008, during a council meeting, Councillor Filip Moers (SP.A), requested that Duchâtelet (Open VLD), leave the chamber while the provincial spatial implementation plan (PRUP), giving demarcation of the city limits, was discussed. This was significant because Duchâtelet hoped that Blavier Farm would be brought within the city limits, thereby offering greater development options. It would seem that there were insinuations of deceit and conflict of interest aimed at Duchâtelet by Moers. These insinuations were rebuffed by Duchâtelet. "I am rich, if I want I can swim in chocolate, so why would I steal another bar of chocolate'" he said.
On 20th August 2008 mayor Ludwig Vandenhove (SP.A) and councillor Filip Moers (SP.A) again filed a complaint against Duchâtelet (Open VLD). Duchâtelet refused to leave the chamber during the recent Council meeting, when a vote was taken on the demarcation of the city limits. The quarrel about demarcation has been dragging on for many months now. The new PRUP stipulated that Duchâtelet's Blavier Farm was outside the city limits. Vandenhove and Moers therefore accused him of a conflict of interest and didn't want him to take part in the vote on the plan. Duchâtelet insisted he had a right to take part in the in the discussion and the vote and only when former mayor Jef Cleerens decided to postpone the vote until the next council meeting, did Duchâtelet leave the meeting. Duchâtelet said, "Filip Moers acted as if I was obliged to leave the chamber, and this is a serious mistake, so the Hasselt prosecutor's office will receive a complaint from me against Ludwig Vandenhove and Moers.
On 5th October 2009, Blavier Farm was listed as a building of historical interest. This is equivalent to a Listed Building in the UK - however, by 2019 little more than the front facade and one gable-end was original.
The building was left empty for much of the following decade, while Duchâtelet tried to get various unsuitable schemes through planning. It was occupied by squatters; there was a fire; it fell into disrepair.
Eventually, permission was granted for a 25 twin bedroom boutique hotel with meeting rooms, suitable for business conventions, weddings, etc, and it finally opened June 2019.
The thought of 13 more yrs of the fucker has done me in.
I don't think Roland subscribes to the saying "Time's Money", and would not be put off by the prospect of waiting years to get planning permission.
Why do I say this? Well, I give you the 13 year history behind his new boutique hotel, Hof van Stayen, https://www.hofvanstayen.be/, situated down a lane opposite the Sint-Truiden stadium complex. It used to be called Blavier Farm. It gives you a flavour of how Duchâtelet appears to assume planning laws are there to be bent, if not broken.
On 18th June 2006, Roland's company, NV Stayen purchased Blavier Farm, with a view to converting this historical farmstead for use as a STVV player hostel and carpark. This area had an agriculture designation in the Sint-Truiden strategic plan.
In October 2006, Duchâtelet contested the Sint-Truiden municipal election. At that time he was not living in Sint-Truiden, in fact he lived on Eduard Van Steenbergenlaan, Deurne, Antwerp. One of the key qualifying requirements to run as a municipal election candidate is to be a local resident. However, in the case of Duchâtelet, because he owned a house at Staaien, right next to the stadium of STVV, he was allowed to stand for VLD-Vivant regardless.
On 19th May 2008, during a council meeting, Councillor Filip Moers (SP.A), requested that Duchâtelet (Open VLD), leave the chamber while the provincial spatial implementation plan (PRUP), giving demarcation of the city limits, was discussed. This was significant because Duchâtelet hoped that Blavier Farm would be brought within the city limits, thereby offering greater development options. It would seem that there were insinuations of deceit and conflict of interest aimed at Duchâtelet by Moers. These insinuations were rebuffed by Duchâtelet. "I am rich, if I want I can swim in chocolate, so why would I steal another bar of chocolate'" he said.
On 20th August 2008 mayor Ludwig Vandenhove (SP.A) and councillor Filip Moers (SP.A) again filed a complaint against Duchâtelet (Open VLD). Duchâtelet refused to leave the chamber during the recent Council meeting, when a vote was taken on the demarcation of the city limits. The quarrel about demarcation has been dragging on for many months now. The new PRUP stipulated that Duchâtelet's Blavier Farm was outside the city limits. Vandenhove and Moers therefore accused him of a conflict of interest and didn't want him to take part in the vote on the plan. Duchâtelet insisted he had a right to take part in the in the discussion and the vote and only when former mayor Jef Cleerens decided to postpone the vote until the next council meeting, did Duchâtelet leave the meeting. Duchâtelet said, "Filip Moers acted as if I was obliged to leave the chamber, and this is a serious mistake, so the Hasselt prosecutor's office will receive a complaint from me against Ludwig Vandenhove and Moers.
On 5th October 2009, Blavier Farm was listed as a building of historical interest. This is equivalent to a Listed Building in the UK - however, by 2019 little more than the front facade and one gable-end was original.
The building was left empty for much of the following decade, while Duchâtelet tried to get various unsuitable schemes through planning. It was occupied by squatters; there was a fire; it fell into disrepair.
Eventually, permission was granted for a 25 twin bedroom boutique hotel with meeting rooms, suitable for business conventions, weddings, etc, and it finally opened June 2019.
The thought of 13 more yrs of the fucker has done me in.
I think this comment from O Red truly shows what we are up against...
This man knows the long game...I've seen one derilict Valley.. I don't want to see another one...
He has so much money that he can play games and charge wtf he wants and if some fools pay it then he'll walk away but a discount? Never gonna happen.
How we as fans and the Trust break him I'm not sure... I never liked the idea of administration... But.... I also can't see Mr Barclay coughing up £50 million plus... Unless he has a better way of developing the ground that works for him.
It's a right fecking mess but something does need to break or another few years of this will most certainly finish us... That I'm sure with every fibre of my body is what Roland wants... Its revenge pure and simple.
The economics of a provincial town in Belgium where he has massive patronage, against London, and the multiple layers of government which will be all set against is different.
The thing is, we can argue how much the land could potentially be worth, but it is what it could potentially be worth in that yellow toothed bastard's head which ultimately matters. Right or wrong. Assuming he will see sense is a massive assumption given his increasingly strange behaviours and outbursts. And the evidence is that he hasn't shown any signs of it yet and he doesn't seem too scared of administration either which strikes me as strange. His behaviours are important, which I may add, should ensure we can't rule out his involvement in all of this.
Comments
You sell 400 of those you're looking at 140-160m. Even with all the other costs you mention, that'd surely make a 50m or 57m outlay worthwhile?
We would now be negotiating a rent with, let's say, Gillingham, and the ground would be unused.
Why go through all this nonsense with people dressed up as sheikhs etc?
You are brave saying the first Sentence, but that is 100% correct. It was a utopian dream but he had a good season at Standard then sold the best 5 players; hence the revolting fans. An academy football farm was his way of running things and we would enjoy a player for a season and then wave goodbye to the next premier star.
Muttley is like a dog with a bone, and I commend him for that.
Duchatelet owns the club and Training ground so is still the main man and Southall was a 10 a penny leech that saw an opportunity with the Poundland sale.
Whatever Roland Duchatelet motivations now or in recent times were, I don't see any working connection with Nimer, Southall etc. I was 100% in favour of the demonstrations but the graffiti on his property may have bought the revenge part of his personality out. I still believe his love of the process of making money is his Raison d'être more that the splashing the cash on a new suit, dentistry or buying a new pair of shoes.
After saying Duchatelet was or could turn spiteful 3 years ago some big hitters on CL disagreed saying it was just about the money ?
We may find out soon if Hell hath no fury like an old multi millionaire scorned.
More of a Shakespearean tragedy than a comedy now, unless you are a Millwall or Palace fan.
For £50m you get the Valley, admittedly not Chelsea but London nonetheless, with a main line station good transport links, extensive shopping and recreation in the immediate area. There is, even without building on the steep sides, quite a few acres of land to erect flats. For the size of a large house you can comfortably build, over 4 floors , 8 units, (probably more). Loads of space to easily break even on. Upton Park yielded more than £50m, I think the valley is a bigger site.
Also for the £50m you also get Sparrows Lane, a beautiful piece of land. That could have the same type of building as the Hollies or maybe something more profitable per Sq m.The Hollies which is walking distance from the training ground used to a childrens home with a large amount of land. That got built on despite opposition from many residents of the borough.
I think Greenwich Council probably won’t have much say in the end of any redevelopment of both of these sites, they might in the first instance oppose planning but there are higher places to go and developer do. As for social/affordable housing there are ways round that, Camden council came to an agreement with the developers of the Middlesex Hospital site, there ain’t no social housing there. Affordable housing? Affordable once and probably not to many then.
Elliot may well hold the winning lottery ticket. I think Duchatelet despite being all the things we know he is, he is also someone who knows potential and after just a few years of purchasing a football club he stands get his money back and more from a property developer.
Personally I think we are in a perfect storm here with the pandemic added into the mix.
£50m equates to about £15m per hectare at the Valley. That is not an unreasonable land valuation (with planning) when compared to resi and mixed use schemes I am aware of not too far away, all with a significant quantum of affordable housing and many not dissimilar in scale and nature to the development Duchatelet probably envisages for the Valley. Of course he doesn't have planning.
However, If you put all the barriers to one side (notably the abnormal ground costs at the Valley - topography, demolition, utilities etc - and whether the access constraints can support in excess of 150 homes per hectare) and for a moment go with his way of thinking that there is a viable route to releasing inherent value in the land, and that value is £50m, one major factor for me is time.
No rational developer would make an unconditional acquisition of the Valley, not at £50m. It would be an option subject to planning with the income coming to Duchatelet once planning is secured. I think there are few if any reputable UK developers who would take an option on the Valley at the moment given how politically toxic that would be, as an aside. He could of course seek to secure planning himself, but at significant cost and risk, and he won't see any income until he is the other side of a planning consent / JR etc and that in itself will require a negotiation, not a process he is noted for expediting.
But let's just assume everything falls his way - the club goes out of business, he finds a purchaser, the site costs are not excessive, he secures change of use and planning consent for the scale of scheme required to deliver a £50m residual value. How long will all of that take?
Being realistic on two matters - 1. he is never getting £50m from ESI or whoever inherits that deal, and - 2. to get his £50m from the land, securing a consent at the Valley will be an extremely protracted planning process, quite likely going to appeal if Greenwich refuse consent or judicial review in the unlikely event they approve it.
He is probably looking at something like at least six years for all the events and processes he needs to go his way to work through to a (for him) positive conclusion and cash in the bank. In my experience it can very often take three to four years or so for a sizeable scheme to get to committee, even in favourable commercial and political circumstances, never mind effectively being contingent on a professional football club going out of business - and these are schemes with experienced developers already in place. Add to that at least a year to 18 months for an appeal, then any subsequent legal processes and another 6-12 months to conclude a Section 106 agreement once he has his consent.
Assuming his average cost of capital is 6%, the £50m is worth about £35m today, and about £33m this time last year when the Australians were trying to close a deal with with him, less the ex-directors' loans. Wasn't £33m roughly what he had agreed with the Aussies?
Given the huge development risks involved, 6% is a very generous discount rate depending what side of the deal you sit on. If you increase it to 12%, which is roughly the annual rate of return a property developer would expect on average, his £50m is worth about £25m today, and this isn't an 'average' scheme.
the maths don’t add up
Why do I say this? Well, I give you the 13 year history behind his new boutique hotel, Hof van Stayen, https://www.hofvanstayen.be/, situated down a lane opposite the Sint-Truiden stadium complex. It used to be called Blavier Farm. It gives you a flavour of how Duchâtelet appears to assume planning laws are there to be bent, if not broken.
This man knows the long game...I've seen one derilict Valley.. I don't want to see another one...
He has so much money that he can play games and charge wtf he wants and if some fools pay it then he'll walk away but a discount? Never gonna happen.
How we as fans and the Trust break him I'm not sure... I never liked the idea of administration... But.... I also can't see Mr Barclay coughing up £50 million plus... Unless he has a better way of developing the ground that works for him.
It's a right fecking mess but something does need to break or another few years of this will most certainly finish us... That I'm sure with every fibre of my body is what Roland wants... Its revenge pure and simple.
Maybe Administration will be the way forward?