Much as I’d like to help out Wasps, there’s no way I could condone “anything whatsoever” that would be detrimental to our success……no matter how minuscule that might be.
What if the additional money it generated enhanced our chances of success?
Personally I believe this would be a non starter from the beginning.
With both Charlton and Charlton Woman already sharing the ground for the next 10 years I would find it extremely unlikely that Greenwich council would grant a license to hold Rugby Union at The Valley.
Personally I believe this would be a non starter from the beginning.
With both Charlton and Charlton Woman already sharing the ground for the next 10 years I would find it extremely unlikely that Greenwich council would grant a license to hold Rugby Union at The Valley.
Along with Roland I am sure some form of non sub let would exist in our lease contract as well.
No go.from the start imho.
What we don't know is how far any talks went or have gone, whether the club have spoken to the council or even if they realise that they need to, perhaps they do but don't think it necessary yet.
And this all assumes that we can agree a fee with Wasps and that Wasps are elected to their league, can get the money together and recruit a team.
Nothing from either club as yet but that is to be expected if no deal done.
If only there was so sort of public meeting which Charlie M was attending in the next four weeks where fans could ask him about this.
has this been mentioned ? .. Duchatelet as the owner of the Valley can allow who he likes to use the facility ? .. or does our lease/agreement not allow for that .. I have no idea
It's not a "license" or even a "licence"; the restrictions on the use of the stadium for non- (association) football events are contained in the various planning consents. There were so many consents over the years until the mid 2000s that I have no idea what the current situation is, but London Broncos were able to play there.
I don't think this would have anything to do with Roland Duchatelet, but there may be a clause in the lease about sub-letting. I'll check. It has been previously argued that neither RD nor the club can issue under leases without the agreement of the ex-directors, because of the terms of their loans secured on the assets, but I'm not sure I want to go round that one again.
Small point in the context but I would assume the outsourced catering contractors are still the primary beneficiaries of ancillary events that use lounges, like weddings. Charlton had use of lounges etc on football match days but otherwise they were controlled by the third party (they appointed). This might apply to rugby (i.e. the hospitality areas). Or the current arrangements may be different.
It's not a "license" or even a "licence"; the restrictions on the use of the stadium for non- (association) football events are contained in the various planning consents. There were so many consents over the years until the mid 2000s that I have no idea what the current situation is, but London Broncos were able to play there.
I don't think this would have anything to do with Roland Duchatelet, but there may be a clause in the lease about sub-letting. I'll check. It has been previously argued that neither RD not the club can issue under leases without the agreement of the ex-directors, because of the terms of their loans secured on the assets, but I'm not sure I want to go round that one again.
Small point in the context but I would assume the outsourced catering contractors are still the primary beneficiaries of ancillary events that use lounges, like weddings. Charlton had use of lounges etc on football match days but otherwise they were controlled by the third party (they appointed). This might apply to rugby (i.e. the hospitality areas). Or the current arrangements may be different.
Kent are back to back County Champions. They beat Cornwall in an epic semi final at Charlton Park RFC and then had another close one in the final against Yorkshire 31-30
Personally I believe this would be a non starter from the beginning.
With both Charlton and Charlton Woman already sharing the ground for the next 10 years I would find it extremely unlikely that Greenwich council would grant a license to hold Rugby Union at The Valley.
Along with Roland I am sure some form of non sub let would exist in our lease contract as well.
No go.from the start imho.
What we don't know is how far any talks went or have gone, whether the club have spoken to the council or even if they realise that they need to, perhaps they do but don't think it necessary yet.
And this all assumes that we can agree a fee with Wasps and that Wasps are elected to their league, can get the money together and recruit a team.
Nothing from either club as yet but that is to be expected if no deal done.
If only there was so sort of public meeting which Charlie M was attending in the next four weeks where fans could ask him about this.
Some crucial points here, I think. Particularly the question of whether they have a chance of getting into the Championship. They tried immediately after they went bust and the RFU told them to get stuffed. The problem was they couldn't show they had enough investment to make then financially stable, and they couldn't get investment because the RFU won't guarantee to make promotion slots to the Premiership available. There's supposed to be a rule that rugby clubs need fixture priority for the Premiership (not the Championship), which obviously they can't get if they play here. So they wouldn't be eligible for promotion. I can't see the RFU buying this.
And then there's the issue that Blackheath will presumably lobby against it massively. The earlier plan had been to play at Worcester, where there was a gap and the local clubs were amateur. Blackheath play at the semi-pro level and would be seriously harmed if they faced competition for casual fans. (I should declare an interest - my brother in law is one of the volunteers at Blackheath).
I'm with the sceptics, but also even if there's a viable business plan this time and they can pay up front, it still doesn't seem like the right thing to do.
Blackheath would have more of a case if they hadn’t quit the Rectory Field eight years ago.
Mixed feelings about this - rich rugby fans spending money in the area would be rather good. But the economics of professional rugby seem to be a mess, and I’d hope Charlton wouldn’t be stung (sorry) if Wasps tanked again.
I am pretty sure that I saw a sign on the gate to Rectory Field that Askeans now play there.
If that is right then the place is possibly viable for Rugby, maybe Blackheath will return there one day.
I believe the legendary 1905 All Blacks played Blackheath at the Rectory Field and there was a crowd of several thousand at that match.
It may have been one of the factors that influenced the eventual move of Arsenal to north of the river in 1913 because our part of South East London was reportedly perceived by them as a Rugby playing area.
1905 has a special meaning for us, and maybe our founding sons were swept up in the Edwardian thirst for sport in all its forms, such that sport featured on early newsreels and was comprehensively covered in the newspapers.
If Wasps play at the Valley it had better not bugger up our pitch or our finances and security. Great sporting institutions can vacate their historic homes as we have seen with Blackheath RFC.
Personally I believe this would be a non starter from the beginning.
With both Charlton and Charlton Woman already sharing the ground for the next 10 years I would find it extremely unlikely that Greenwich council would grant a license to hold Rugby Union at The Valley.
Along with Roland I am sure some form of non sub let would exist in our lease contract as well.
No go.from the start imho.
What we don't know is how far any talks went or have gone, whether the club have spoken to the council or even if they realise that they need to, perhaps they do but don't think it necessary yet.
And this all assumes that we can agree a fee with Wasps and that Wasps are elected to their league, can get the money together and recruit a team.
Nothing from either club as yet but that is to be expected if no deal done.
If only there was so sort of public meeting which Charlie M was attending in the next four weeks where fans could ask him about this.
Some crucial points here, I think. Particularly the question of whether they have a chance of getting into the Championship. They tried immediately after they went bust and the RFU told them to get stuffed. The problem was they couldn't show they had enough investment to make then financially stable, and they couldn't get investment because the RFU won't guarantee to make promotion slots to the Premiership available. There's supposed to be a rule that rugby clubs need fixture priority for the Premiership (not the Championship), which obviously they can't get if they play here. So they wouldn't be eligible for promotion. I can't see the RFU buying this.
And then there's the issue that Blackheath will presumably lobby against it massively. The earlier plan had been to play at Worcester, where there was a gap and the local clubs were amateur. Blackheath play at the semi-pro level and would be seriously harmed if they faced competition for casual fans. (I should declare an interest - my brother in law is one of the volunteers at Blackheath).
I'm with the sceptics, but also even if there's a viable business plan this time and they can pay up front, it still doesn't seem like the right thing to do.
Wasps didn’t have priority at Coventry when they were in the Premiership there (in fact Wasps moved their games to Sundays). Same with London Irish at Madjeski or Bristol at Ashton Gate.
The issue with investment was more to do with the loss of their “P share” which gave them a share of the central income from the Premiership. Promotion from the Championship is available provided you meet the relevant criteria which includes the size of the stadium you play in (I think this is ridiculous but that’s rugby for you…).
The uncomfortable truth is that if the new Wasps owners have serious investment behind them, then a ground share at The Valley before a permanent move into Kent makes perfect sense. And in an age where financial rules are becoming ever tighter, Charlton have to obtain all the income they can to compete with other clubs.
If this is a serious discussion, then you have to work on the basis Wasps are confident that they have their Championship spot in place. Getting a squad together won’t be that hard.
Thought from the thread title that we had a problem infestation of Hymenoptera at The Valley.
The pitch must be a problem here, it's too narrow. Perfect at the moment for the 1st team and selected youth level games, even the ladies, who paid for it, the delicate dainty flowers! But 30 hairy arsed rugger buggers?
I beleive we barely made six figures from the London Broncos tenure so is worth the hassle?
Well, Dave Hughes - who was much more interested in RL than Charlton - became a CAFC director and put £500k into the football club when asked which he still hasn’t had back. So there’s that.
But I agree it’s probably not a significant earner, not least because no one can invest in the ground while the Belgian owns it.
I beleive we barely made six figures from the London Broncos tenure so is worth the hassle?
Well, Dave Hughes - who was much more interested in RL than Charlton - became a CAFC director and put £500k into the football club when asked which he still hasn’t had back. So there’s that.
But I agree it’s probably not a significant earner, not least because no one can invest in the ground while the Belgian owns it.
You mean like the new pitch, safe standing, fan zone, fans bar refurb etc.? I know it isn't much but that's more investment and interest than the Belgian put into it
Anything is possible, but seeing as we are effectively tied into the women’s team playing at The Valley through the pitch grant, could a 3-way share really be viable with ground usage and pitch impact?
I am pretty sure that I saw a sign on the gate to Rectory Field that Askeans now play there.
If that is right then the place is possibly viable for Rugby, maybe Blackheath will return there one day.
Blackheath upped sticks to Eltham because they didn't want to share bar takings, etc, with the other clubs based at the Rectory Field (tennis, cricket, etc). Well Hall is exclusively theirs, I think. They were getting about 1,000 at the Rectory Field for third-tier rugby, not sure what they get now.
Askeans play much further down the rugby pyramid - when they moved in they weren't charging an admission fee for spectators.
Comments
or do we have exclusive rights and can sub let if we so wish
Way too much of a gamble I’d say…..so no way Pedro.
Along with Roland I am sure some form of non sub let would exist in our lease contract as well.
No go.from the start imho.
And this all assumes that we can agree a fee with Wasps and that Wasps are elected to their league, can get the money together and recruit a team.
Nothing from either club as yet but that is to be expected if no deal done.
If only there was so sort of public meeting which Charlie M was attending in the next four weeks where fans could ask him about this.
I don't think this would have anything to do with Roland Duchatelet, but there may be a clause in the lease about sub-letting. I'll check. It has been previously argued that neither RD nor the club can issue under leases without the agreement of the ex-directors, because of the terms of their loans secured on the assets, but I'm not sure I want to go round that one again.
Small point in the context but I would assume the outsourced catering contractors are still the primary beneficiaries of ancillary events that use lounges, like weddings. Charlton had use of lounges etc on football match days but otherwise they were controlled by the third party (they appointed). This might apply to rugby (i.e. the hospitality areas). Or the current arrangements may be different.
And then there's the issue that Blackheath will presumably lobby against it massively. The earlier plan had been to play at Worcester, where there was a gap and the local clubs were amateur. Blackheath play at the semi-pro level and would be seriously harmed if they faced competition for casual fans. (I should declare an interest - my brother in law is one of the volunteers at Blackheath).
I'm with the sceptics, but also even if there's a viable business plan this time and they can pay up front, it still doesn't seem like the right thing to do.
Mixed feelings about this - rich rugby fans spending money in the area would be rather good. But the economics of professional rugby seem to be a mess, and I’d hope Charlton wouldn’t be stung (sorry) if Wasps tanked again.
If that is right then the place is possibly viable for Rugby, maybe Blackheath will return there one day.
I believe the legendary 1905 All Blacks played Blackheath at the Rectory Field and there was a crowd of several thousand at that match.
It may have been one of the factors that influenced the eventual move of Arsenal to north of the river in 1913 because our part of South East London was reportedly perceived by them as a Rugby playing area.
1905 has a special meaning for us, and maybe our founding sons were swept up in the Edwardian thirst for sport in all its forms, such that sport featured on early newsreels and was comprehensively covered in the newspapers.
If Wasps play at the Valley it had better not bugger up our pitch or our finances and security. Great sporting institutions can vacate their historic homes as we have seen with Blackheath RFC.
The uncomfortable truth is that if the new Wasps owners have serious investment behind them, then a ground share at The Valley before a permanent move into Kent makes perfect sense. And in an age where financial rules are becoming ever tighter, Charlton have to obtain all the income they can to compete with other clubs.
The pitch must be a problem here, it's too narrow. Perfect at the moment for the 1st team and selected youth level games, even the ladies, who paid for it, the delicate dainty flowers! But 30 hairy arsed rugger buggers?
Keep up Large..tried that one on page one...🙄
But I agree it’s probably not a significant earner, not least because no one can invest in the ground while the Belgian owns it.
Askeans play much further down the rugby pyramid - when they moved in they weren't charging an admission fee for spectators.