Just to confirm these are definitely not portacabins! They have cost a lot of money. Some were purchased from Reading but some are brand spanking new and made to our specification
they will be state of the art inside and are all properly plumbed in and wired up.
surprisingly big, all newly decorated and very smart. A definite step up from the existing clubhouse there. I’m looking forward to seeing it in use in a few months
Just to confirm these are definitely not portacabins! They have cost a lot of money. Some were purchased from Reading but some are brand spanking new and made to our specification
they will be state of the art inside and are all properly plumbed in and wired up.
surprisingly big, all newly decorated and very smart. A definite step up from the existing clubhouse there. I’m looking forward to seeing it in use in a few months
Oh come on @swi@Swisdom keep up TS has no money, wants to run the club on a shoe string and sell up ASAP !!! 😆😆😆
They are 25 year temporary buildings. They are not portacabins
No, but they are described by the club as “cabins” and very definitely “temporary”, in its planning application - which also appears to argue that the need for them is a consequence of Covid, whereas we know the actual reason is the ownership of the land and well as cost. The club is extremely clear that the buildings are not permanent, which will be to satisfy the planners. A period of 25 years would not normally be considered temporary in planning terms. Having read a lot of disingenuous planning applications over the years, I wouldn’t be surprised if permission is granted on a time limited basis for a period of much less than 25 years. Five would be pushing it. Two is more usual. The club can, of course, apply for extensions if that happens.
They are 25 year temporary buildings. They are not portacabins
No, but they are described by the club as “cabins” and very definitely “temporary”, in its planning application - which also appears to argue that the need for them is a consequence of Covid, whereas we know the actual reason is the ownership of the land and well as cost. The club is extremely clear that the buildings are not permanent, which will be to satisfy the planners. A period of 25 years would not normally be considered temporary in planning terms. Having read a lot of disingenuous planning applications over the years, I wouldn’t be surprised if permission is granted on a time limited basis for a period of much less than 25 years. Five would be pushing it. Two is more usual. The club can, of course, apply for extensions if that happens.
Planning permission isn't the same as building life span
See the London Eye which initially had five years planning permission.
They are 25 year temporary buildings. They are not portacabins
No, but they are described by the club as “cabins” and very definitely “temporary”, in its planning application - which also appears to argue that the need for them is a consequence of Covid, whereas we know the actual reason is the ownership of the land and well as cost. The club is extremely clear that the buildings are not permanent, which will be to satisfy the planners. A period of 25 years would not normally be considered temporary in planning terms. Having read a lot of disingenuous planning applications over the years, I wouldn’t be surprised if permission is granted on a time limited basis for a period of much less than 25 years. Five would be pushing it. Two is more usual. The club can, of course, apply for extensions if that happens.
Planning permission isn't the same as building life span
See the London Eye which initially had five years planning permission.
Then of course there is Gillingham's temporary stand!
They are 25 year temporary buildings. They are not portacabins
No, but they are described by the club as “cabins” and very definitely “temporary”, in its planning application - which also appears to argue that the need for them is a consequence of Covid, whereas we know the actual reason is the ownership of the land and well as cost. The club is extremely clear that the buildings are not permanent, which will be to satisfy the planners. A period of 25 years would not normally be considered temporary in planning terms. Having read a lot of disingenuous planning applications over the years, I wouldn’t be surprised if permission is granted on a time limited basis for a period of much less than 25 years. Five would be pushing it. Two is more usual. The club can, of course, apply for extensions if that happens.
Planning permission isn't the same as building life span
See the London Eye which initially had five years planning permission.
I haven’t suggested that it is. But the club is telling the planners that the cabins will be replaced by the permanent structure for which it already has consent, which I doubt is likely.
They are 25 year temporary buildings. They are not portacabins
No, but they are described by the club as “cabins” and very definitely “temporary”, in its planning application - which also appears to argue that the need for them is a consequence of Covid, whereas we know the actual reason is the ownership of the land and well as cost. The club is extremely clear that the buildings are not permanent, which will be to satisfy the planners. A period of 25 years would not normally be considered temporary in planning terms. Having read a lot of disingenuous planning applications over the years, I wouldn’t be surprised if permission is granted on a time limited basis for a period of much less than 25 years. Five would be pushing it. Two is more usual. The club can, of course, apply for extensions if that happens.
Planning permission isn't the same as building life span
See the London Eye which initially had five years planning permission.
I haven’t suggested that it is. But the club is telling the planners that the cabins will be replaced by the permanent structure for which it already has consent, which I doubt is likely.
I agree.
Unless TS buys Sparrows Lane in which case the situation may change.
The recent appointment of Tom Pell suggests to me the issue for the auditors may have been the number/quality of coaches, something that can be relatively easily fixed although still an extra expense.
My guess is that if the physical side of the requirements are met ie the pitches and buildings, then the club will hire more coaches.
Given the many, many football experts on here and other Charlton social media all better able to coach our players than Jacko, Adkins, Bowyer, Powell, etc etc there should be no problem filling the positions.
So can anyone verify that the comment on ITTV about the audit being done and not being satisfactory is BS or indeed true?
Cat 1 is an enormous undertaking and it’s almost inevitable that some things that emerge from the audit will not be acceptable. Address those and there’s no reason why things shouldn’t progress.
Come on now folks. An audit in any circle is exactly that and an auditors job is to audit, you will never in a million years have an audit and not get any NCR's or recommendations before being passed. It is what auditors do
Come on now folks. An audit in any circle is exactly that and an auditors job is to audit, you will never in a million years have an audit and not get any NCR's or recommendations before being passed. It is what auditors do
Saw the article in The Athletic about Birmingham potentially being downgraded from Cat 1 and that the EPL have no wish (and supposedly no say) in keeping down the number of Cat 1 academies.
If the Professional Game Academy Audit Company (PGAAC) have made the recommendation to downgrade Birmingham then perhaps TS’ optimism was based on a tip from them earlier in the year. I’m just hoping / supposing that any recommendations / provisos he was made aware of then were what was being checked up in our recent audit.
Starting the season as a club with a Cat 1 academy and all that seems to entail to retain that status would be a hugely positive long term step for CAFC.
Saw the article in The Athletic about Birmingham potentially being downgraded from Cat 1 and that the EPL have no wish (and supposedly no say) in keeping down the number of Cat 1 academies.
If the Professional Game Academy Audit Company (PGAAC) have made the recommendation to downgrade Birmingham then perhaps TS’ optimism was based on a tip from them earlier in the year. I’m just hoping / supposing that any recommendations / provisos he was made aware of then were what was being checked up in our recent audit.
Starting the season as a club with a Cat 1 academy and all that seems to entail to retain that status would be a hugely positive long term step for CAFC.
I've always thought a good rule of Category One status would be that clubs need to produce X number of players for their First Team over a set number of years - Cant see the top six liking that though.
I've always thought a good rule of Category One status would be that clubs need to produce X number of players for their First Team over a set number of years - Cant see the top six liking that though.
I assume it’s already considered alongside facilities, coaching etc?
It’s a lot harder for them though due to the level they’re playing at, the expectations are so much higher.
If a top 6 club regularly produces a lot of players who have careers in the EFL that’s a more productive academy than a League 1 side bringing a few through to their first team.
I've always thought a good rule of Category One status would be that clubs need to produce X number of players for their First Team over a set number of years - Cant see the top six liking that though.
I assume it’s already considered alongside facilities, coaching etc?
It’s a lot harder for them though due to the level they’re playing at, the expectations are so much higher.
If a top 6 club regularly produces a lot of players who have careers in the EFL that’s a more productive academy than a League 1 side bringing a few through to their first team.
With regard to your last paragraph, there is an argument that Charlton do both.
I've always thought a good rule of Category One status would be that clubs need to produce X number of players for their First Team over a set number of years - Cant see the top six liking that though.
I assume it’s already considered alongside facilities, coaching etc?
It’s a lot harder for them though due to the level they’re playing at, the expectations are so much higher.
If a top 6 club regularly produces a lot of players who have careers in the EFL that’s a more productive academy than a League 1 side bringing a few through to their first team.
With regard to your last paragraph, there is an argument that Charlton do both.
To an extent we have, but probably not at the same rate as some Prem clubs.
Glad glad to hear improvements made to SL However as TS doesn't own that or the ground won't that increase the sale value for the idiot that still,owns it?
Glad glad to hear improvements made to SL However as TS doesn't own that or the ground won't that increase the sale value for the idiot that still,owns it?
I believe the new buildings can be dismantled? If we are renting the grounds I would assume that the owner is responsible for its upkeep and improvements are discussed, agreed and adjustments made to the contract to reflect that. TS is not the type to throw money away.
Glad glad to hear improvements made to SL However as TS doesn't own that or the ground won't that increase the sale value for the idiot that still,owns it?
I believe the new buildings can be dismantled? If we are renting the grounds I would assume that the owner is responsible for its upkeep and improvements are discussed, agreed and adjustments made to the contract to reflect that. TS is not the type to throw money away.
The buildings CAN be dismantled and moved in the event we ever moved the training ground but this is not the plan. Thomas has invested several million pounds at the Training Ground but not with a view to making it more valuable to Roland
I m sure there will be further announcements soon as it will be in the spotlight once pre season kicks into action
I am sure the players will enjoy the new surroundings as will the staff there - it looks very swanky indeed - well at least it did when I saw it 4 or 5 weeks ago.
It sounds like quite a lot of work has been happening. Are there any images of the new upgrades we can view, or is that something the club like to keep under wraps?
Comments
they will be state of the art inside and are all properly plumbed in and wired up.
surprisingly big, all newly decorated and very smart. A definite step up from the existing clubhouse there. I’m looking forward to seeing it in use in a few months
Seriously nice to hear a positive development.
What work are they saying needs to be done?
Already said on Sponsors dinner thread that audit had been completed and club was waiting on the report. That was two weeks ago.
See the London Eye which initially had five years planning permission.
Unless TS buys Sparrows Lane in which case the situation may change.
The recent appointment of Tom Pell suggests to me the issue for the auditors may have been the number/quality of coaches, something that can be relatively easily fixed although still an extra expense.
My guess is that if the physical side of the requirements are met ie the pitches and buildings, then the club will hire more coaches.
Given the many, many football experts on here and other Charlton social media all better able to coach our players than Jacko, Adkins, Bowyer, Powell, etc etc there should be no problem filling the positions.
https://theathletic.com/news/premier-league-wont-cap-amount-of-category-1-academies-as-birmingham-could-lose-status/fOdcQI5rFmjj/?amp=1
If the Professional Game Academy Audit Company (PGAAC) have made the recommendation to downgrade Birmingham then perhaps TS’ optimism was based on a tip from them earlier in the year. I’m just hoping / supposing that any recommendations / provisos he was made aware of then were what was being checked up in our recent audit.
Starting the season as a club with a Cat 1 academy and all that seems to entail to retain that status would be a hugely positive long term step for CAFC.
One out, one in would be convenient although not sure if cat 1 is regionalised as Cat 2 is.
U21s are not: https://www.premierleague.com/tables?team=U21
Notice with the U21s there is simply a Division One | Division Two
If a top 6 club regularly produces a lot of players who have careers in the EFL that’s a more productive academy than a League 1 side bringing a few through to their first team.
@Ollywozere any chance of a behind the scenes tour (vid or photos) for the website?
However as TS doesn't own that or the ground won't that increase the sale value for the idiot that still,owns it?
If we are renting the grounds I would assume that the owner is responsible for its upkeep and improvements are discussed, agreed and adjustments made to the contract to reflect that.
TS is not the type to throw money away.
I m sure there will be further announcements soon as it will be in the spotlight once pre season kicks into action
I am sure the players will enjoy the new surroundings as will the staff there - it looks very swanky indeed - well at least it did when I saw it 4 or 5 weeks ago.
Will that ever happen again?