If I was running the club, I wouldn't bother with U11, U12 or U13 football in terms of the academy. I would affiliate with and support a number of local grass roots teams and develop the younger players through them. It might even be a good idea to form a Charlton league. That might involve subsidising players whose families don't have the money etc... But also ensuring the coaching these clubs provide is top notch.
If I was running the club, I wouldn't bother with U11, U12 or U13 football in terms of the academy. I would affiliate with and support a number of local grass roots teams and develop the younger players through them. It might even be a good idea to form a Charlton league. That might involve subsidising players whose families don't have the money etc... But also ensuring the coaching these clubs provide is top notch.
Would also make for better psychological, social and even technical development, if my reading of No Hunger in Paradise is correct.
Our current best youngster was with Chelsea at that age. It is all about trawling at that age for most clubs and the standard of coaching is not that high in many cases anyway.
Well my son was with the Tottenham academy as well as the herts football development centre which was run by Norwich City and then Crystal Palace with access to top coaches and I have managed at grass roots level. I don't pretend to know it all, but I have enough experience to take a view. Right or wrong.
I think there are a small number of 10 to 13 year olds the club will want to manage and have on their books, but this could be done within alternative structures. And the really good ones can of course play or be coached at higher age levels.
How much value does the 12 year lease actually have if any. Does anyone know if that value can be calculated at all?
You can thank @carly burn for this, posted on this thread on the 8th October:
"I believe the total rent liability adds up to £7.578 million over 15 years paid in different instalments. So roughly just over half a million £ a year."
That’s a liability i.e. a cost to whoever is the lessee, or in other words the tenant, who ultimately in this case is TS
The lease has no value to a 3rd party like, say, me / my bank as a lender
Only long leases have a value to lend against, ideally greater than 125 years - mortgage providers generally will not provide a mortgage on a leasehold property, normally a flat, if it’s less than 70 years
So, he can’t borrow against The Valley - RD could, as a 12 year lease, with I assume no break clauses, has a value to me as a lender if the freehold of The Valley was charged as security
That said, as a tenant covenant (i.e. the financial strength of the tenant) I wouldn’t lend, as CAFC is a poor covenant (loss making, reliant on its owner to survive etc etc)
In other words, if I lent, then CAFC goes bust, there is no longer any rent to cover the loan payments
I would also have a massive Loan to Value problem - when you get a bank valuation, you get 3 values - Market Value, which is value based upon the property with the benefit of the lease - Vacant Possession Value, which is the value of the property if there was no lease i.e. no tenant / no income, and Reinstatement Value, which is cost to rebuild if the place burned down for example
There will be a huge difference between Market Value and Vacant Possession Value, as what alternative use does The Valley have ?? It’s pretty limited isn’t it
Also cost to rebuild will be mind bogglingly expensive
I suspect the VP would be higher personally and that that is what drives RDs valuation. All about "hope value".
How much value does the 12 year lease actually have if any. Does anyone know if that value can be calculated at all?
You can thank @carly burn for this, posted on this thread on the 8th October:
"I believe the total rent liability adds up to £7.578 million over 15 years paid in different instalments. So roughly just over half a million £ a year."
That’s a liability i.e. a cost to whoever is the lessee, or in other words the tenant, who ultimately in this case is TS
The lease has no value to a 3rd party like, say, me / my bank as a lender
Only long leases have a value to lend against, ideally greater than 125 years - mortgage providers generally will not provide a mortgage on a leasehold property, normally a flat, if it’s less than 70 years
So, he can’t borrow against The Valley - RD could, as a 12 year lease, with I assume no break clauses, has a value to me as a lender if the freehold of The Valley was charged as security
That said, as a tenant covenant (i.e. the financial strength of the tenant) I wouldn’t lend, as CAFC is a poor covenant (loss making, reliant on its owner to survive etc etc)
In other words, if I lent, then CAFC goes bust, there is no longer any rent to cover the loan payments
I would also have a massive Loan to Value problem - when you get a bank valuation, you get 3 values - Market Value, which is value based upon the property with the benefit of the lease - Vacant Possession Value, which is the value of the property if there was no lease i.e. no tenant / no income, and Reinstatement Value, which is cost to rebuild if the place burned down for example
There will be a huge difference between Market Value and Vacant Possession Value, as what alternative use does The Valley have ?? It’s pretty limited isn’t it
Also cost to rebuild will be mind bogglingly expensive
I suspect the VP would be higher personally and that that is what drives RDs valuation. All about "hope value".
Correct in terms of how RD views it I suspect, but no valuation firm would provide a figure based on ‘hope value’ - they will only value based on the facts, as their PI is on the line and RICS rules wouldn’t permit it anyway - so a professional valuation would, based on the situation as it is, have a Market Value which is significantly higher than VP
That’s my view - but I am not a valuer- I think a member of CL is a RICS valuer - can’t recall who it is
The only takeover gossip I heard was that interested parties could buy the whole lot (ground and team) unless humiliatingly stupid money was demanded, but it is complicated by the ‘one club two guv’nors’ situation we are in. Negotiation would be (and I have no idea whatsoever if anything at all has happened) very difficult. I also heard that the interested party is credible and not chancers. I absolutely have no idea who it could be.
Isn’t that the issue though, that RD does indeed want stupid money for the property?
Surely there is room for a negotiation with RD along the lines of the Valley/SP is worth x in it's current usage but with outline planning would be worth y. Buy it for x and then if things change and planning can be granted agree a deal where RD receives a percentage of the difference in the values
Surely there is room for a negotiation with RD along the lines of the Valley/SP is worth x in it's current usage but with outline planning would be worth y. Buy it for x and then if things change and planning can be granted agree a deal where RD receives a percentage of the difference in the values
He's 75 isn't he? Probably wouldn't be interested in any deal like that, as he might not be around to see any benefit. No, I think he quite likes his 500k a year income from his property, and he probably feels that Sparrows Lane is an increasing asset at a time when people are talking about reducing regulations on land development.
I can't see why he'd be looking for anything less than the £35m he turned down in 2019 unfortunately.
A friend of mine knows the secretary at Phoenix Sports. Apparently we contacted them after the recent U21 cup match and requested our share of the gate receipts.....unbelievable.
Maybe the £195 it amounted to paid for the giant extension cord.
Ok this is getting silly now. If she has gone because as FD she cannot pay the bills that can only mean TS has decided not to put any more funding in. I'm not saying he should after £20 odd million maybe he has reached his threshold. However if thatd the case he needs to sell urgently and stop fucking about
A friend of mine knows the secretary at Phoenix Sports. Apparently we contacted them after the recent U21 cup match amd requested our share of the gate receipts.....unbelievable.
Maybe the £195 it amounted to paid for the giant extension cord.
Rules of the competition state that Charlton were entitled to the money it was sent .
If we are struggling to pay bills and if TS put aside a specific amount of money for his project and has now run that pot dry then what absolute folly spending all that money on the temporary buildings on Sparrows Lane really was this summer.
FD of a league one club is a poor job for a decent accountant with a bit of ambition. £7m turnover (or whatever it is) is peanuts in the scheme of things, and if Emma is any good she will command a better salary almost anywhere else. It could just be down to wanting more money and/or better prospects.
A friend of mine knows the secretary at Phoenix Sports. Apparently we contacted them after the recent U21 cup match amd requested our share of the gate receipts.....unbelievable.
Maybe the £195 it amounted to paid for the giant extension cord.
Rules of the competition state that Charlton were entitled to the money it was sent .
Phoenix are a South East Counties team, do you not think we might have waived the rules and let them keep this astronomical sum?
As we have done every other time we have played them.....
A friend of mine knows the secretary at Phoenix Sports. Apparently we contacted them after the recent U21 cup match amd requested our share of the gate receipts.....unbelievable.
Maybe the £195 it amounted to paid for the giant extension cord.
Rules of the competition state that Charlton were entitled to the money it was sent .
Phoenix are a South East Counties team, do you not think we might have waived the rules and let them keep this astronomical sum?
As we have done every other time we have played them.....
I didn’t say I agreed with it in fact I think its a disgrace that we have kept the money, I was just stating that Phoenix sent the money as per competition rules
Comments
I think there are a small number of 10 to 13 year olds the club will want to manage and have on their books, but this could be done within alternative structures. And the really good ones can of course play or be coached at higher age levels.
Don't be shy !
DO tell !
That’s my view - but I am not a valuer- I think a member of CL is a RICS valuer - can’t recall who it is
No, I think he quite likes his 500k a year income from his property, and he probably feels that Sparrows Lane is an increasing asset at a time when people are talking about reducing regulations on land development.
I can't see why he'd be looking for anything less than the £35m he turned down in 2019 unfortunately.
Emma Parker has been at the club for 5 years. Charlton fan too
Those believing he's serious about our club will need to have a rethink.
A) a much better, happier job; or
Either way TS has some serious issues now