Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Methven, Rodwell and Scott have to go NOW.

123468

Comments

  • J BLOCK said:
    kafka said:
    Without any ITK knowledge whatsoever, I have said all along that we'll end up leaving The Valley.
    This was the end game for Dushitelet, I hope I am wrong.
    Your wrong.…… talks have taken place and its top of the agenda for the new owners but there no
    rush as we have an excellent agreement in place  and still 9/10 years left on the lease... 
    Now that Airman has clarified the renewal clauses, I don't see how the Agreement can be described as excellent, other than from Duchelet's pov. It's a ticking time bomb
    Yep, and I'll say again, no serious owners of this football club will buy  without the assets, we will never be successful without them. 
    Tchau tchau SE7 :'(
  • Rothko said:
    Rothko said:
    yeah all that, but good luck with the politics of getting that through City Hall or when it gets to Ministers, with the housing minister being the local MP at the moment 
    Not sure this lot give a shit about who they upset tbh; and the housing minister will need to show a pain of pain in the constituency they’re in if they are going to put a significant squeeze on every other MP’s constituency to deliver new homes.

    besides, how many of the local electorate are Charlton fans ? I doubt it’s that many these days.
    Quite a few, also the politics of it will be terrible, the Mayor be it Sadiq or whoever wins for Labour next time round won't say yes. 
    For all our rivalries, football fans, and indeed sports fans as a group are a massive chunk of electorate. Allowing a reasonably well known, and generally well liked ex Premier Team to be kicked out of their ground to build houses would go down horrendously across the country. 
    But it’s not Charlton’s ground. It’s owned by somebody else. It’s a ground the club left, came back to and then eventually lost again and only plays there atm because it rents it. Other clubs have fallen on hard times and basically lost their grounds and I don’t recall an outpouring of public sympathy stopping it; and if for instance West Ham, that ‘generally well liked 🤣 PL team’ from across the river ever get moved on from the London stadium nobody outside their owners and fans will give a shit for them and probably definitely not the local electorate where the ground is located. Charlton are not a special case.
    No significant club has lost their ground in decades.

    Clubs like Chelsea and Fulham, in much more desirable areas for housing, never got kicked out of their ground back in the 80s when football was far less popular, despite massive battles with property developers.

    Clubs have gone under, like Bury, and their ground has survived and is now used by their reborn feeder club.
  • Rothko said:
    Rothko said:
    yeah all that, but good luck with the politics of getting that through City Hall or when it gets to Ministers, with the housing minister being the local MP at the moment 
    Not sure this lot give a shit about who they upset tbh; and the housing minister will need to show a pain of pain in the constituency they’re in if they are going to put a significant squeeze on every other MP’s constituency to deliver new homes.

    besides, how many of the local electorate are Charlton fans ? I doubt it’s that many these days.
    Quite a few, also the politics of it will be terrible, the Mayor be it Sadiq or whoever wins for Labour next time round won't say yes. 
    For all our rivalries, football fans, and indeed sports fans as a group are a massive chunk of electorate. Allowing a reasonably well known, and generally well liked ex Premier Team to be kicked out of their ground to build houses would go down horrendously across the country. 
    But it’s not Charlton’s ground. It’s owned by somebody else. It’s a ground the club left, came back to and then eventually lost again and only plays there atm because it rents it. Other clubs have fallen on hard times and basically lost their grounds and I don’t recall an outpouring of public sympathy stopping it; and if for instance West Ham, that ‘generally well liked 🤣 PL team’ from across the river ever get moved on from the London stadium nobody outside their owners and fans will give a shit for them and probably definitely not the local electorate where the ground is located. Charlton are not a special case.
    No significant club has lost their ground in decades.

    Clubs like Chelsea and Fulham, in much more desirable areas for housing, never got kicked out of their ground back in the 80s when football was far less popular, despite massive battles with property developers.

    Clubs have gone under, like Bury, and their ground has survived and is now used by their reborn feeder club.
    Chelsea in the very smart position where their fans own the land the pitch is on, always been very jealous of that 
  • edited December 9
    Even if an owner did indeed purchase the stadium, that doesn't mean he'll be able to sell it to the next one. We could just as easily end up in the same situation where the next owner would rather pay a cheaper price without the stadium included.
  • Nobody is granting planning consent with the club in existence and able to play there, IMO, but RD can make that difficult by refusing to offer a new lease. The council might be able to use CPO powers in extremis, but it can’t all the time the club is there.

    I can see a potential scenario where the club isn’t in a position to occupy the ground and planning consent gets granted for redevelopment though.

    At the moment, everything is about leverage. It will only get more and more difficult until and unless it is resolved.
    Would stumbling about in the lowest of echelons of the football pyramid count?
    Things aren’t great, but we’re pretty far off “the lowest echelons of the football pyramid” thankfully! 
  • bobmunro said:
    Without any ITK knowledge whatsoever, I have said all along that we'll end up leaving The Valley.
    This was the end game for Dushitelet, I hope I am wrong.
    Your wrong.…… talks have taken place and its top of the agenda for the new owners but there no
    rush as we have an excellent agreement in place  and still 9/10 years left on the lease... 

    How is a lease with no right of renewal, costing £500k a year in rent, and with just 9 seasons left to run an excellent agreement? Of course talks will have taken place but 'no rush'?

    You are a clown, Colin.


    I'd not call him that.
  • bobmunro said:
    Without any ITK knowledge whatsoever, I have said all along that we'll end up leaving The Valley.
    This was the end game for Dushitelet, I hope I am wrong.
    Your wrong.…… talks have taken place and its top of the agenda for the new owners but there no
    rush as we have an excellent agreement in place  and still 9/10 years left on the lease... 

    How is a lease with no right of renewal, costing £500k a year in rent, and with just 9 seasons left to run an excellent agreement? Of course talks will have taken place but 'no rush'?

    You are a clown, Colin.


    I'd not call him that.
    A clown? Or Colin?
  • Nobody is granting planning consent with the club in existence and able to play there, IMO, but RD can make that difficult by refusing to offer a new lease. The council might be able to use CPO powers in extremis, but it can’t all the time the club is there.

    I can see a potential scenario where the club isn’t in a position to occupy the ground and planning consent gets granted for redevelopment though.

    At the moment, everything is about leverage. It will only get more and more difficult until and unless it is resolved.

    I've said for years this is what's happening. Managed decline.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Managed decline? "I've got a great idea chaps. Start throwing money down the drain. You won't get any back. Are you In? -  Yes I'll go for that. Can't fail and easy to do. Here's my first millions, let me know when it's gone so I can invest and lose some more." 

    If it looks that way, it's by accident of attracting owners who don't know what they're doing, not deliberately trying to do it badly. What happens to the 'managed decline' if someone with the wherewithal takes over, or the current owners ditch their SMT flops? 

    And RD knows his most realistic prospect of financial gain will come if we are a premier league club.

    It's farcical to think the evidence does support such a conspiracy theory, but it's no wonder we see it when we seem to get worse year on year. 
  • Some of the shit spouted on here as gospel is hilarious, on both sides of the fence
  • Duchatelet, stick the rent up to £500k per week and put us all out of our misery!
  • edited December 10
    Lots of calls on the match thread for a change of manager, (how much would that cost?) you can’t keep turning over managers, if the players you keep recruiting arnt very good.
    Manager wanted said players,manager got said players,now he can’t train them to kick a fucking football properly & in doing so has even somehow made our own players worse than before too…I don’t give a shite how much it costs not my money,but if they want to just keep wasting it so be it…or they take the plunge & start from scratch either way they need to get their act together before they lose all paying fans…& be in an even worse position & lose the lot…
  • Sponsored links:


  • Get out of our club enough is enough

    Total switch up needed

    fucking pants the lot of them
  • Without any ITK knowledge whatsoever, I have said all along that we'll end up leaving The Valley.
    This was the end game for Dushitelet, I hope I am wrong.
    Your wrong.…… talks have taken place and its top of the agenda for the new owners but there no
    rush as we have an excellent agreement in place  and still 9/10 years left on the lease... 
    So it’s top of their agenda but there’s no rush, which one is it? If they are really saying that then I’m even more worried. Get these clowns out now!
  • Should never have let Jones pick his whole squad in the first place.
    He's not a player identifier. Lua Lua told us that.

    No. That was Scott's role. One he also seems to be incapable of. 
    A right feeking mess this!
    What was the Lua Lua quote?
  • Scoham said:
    Should never have let Jones pick his whole squad in the first place.
    He's not a player identifier. Lua Lua told us that.

    No. That was Scott's role. One he also seems to be incapable of. 
    A right feeking mess this!
    What was the Lua Lua quote?
    I'm also very curious about that!
  • edited December 11
    Sorry you are clutching at straws with Lua Lua. He spoke of the great things he had done for him in the past and what he can contribute. Any guaranteed  projection going forward is entirely of your own making.

    There are far bigger issues in play than the likes of Lua Lua
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!