Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Methven, Rodwell and Scott have to go NOW.
Comments
-
What would you do that would make you better as owner of the club?alburyaddick said:
Airman - I never really understand your obsession with owning The Valley. If I was running the club ( and I’m pretty sure I’d be better than this lot) it would be very low down my list of prioritiesAirman Brown said:To which the proper response is, without the fans you don’t have a business. Particularly when you don’t own the assets either.
It’s dead money - no sensible business person would buy it.1 -
I routinely listen to the 'Where's the money gone' podcast and CM is constantly and consistently saying the complete opposite. I am not saying Methven is a football club managing genius, but i think you are very badly misrepresenting his views on that issue.MikeBaileysFanClub said:Watched a podcast a few weeks ago when Charlie boy commented that it was funny/odd that supporters believe that the club belongs to them. Just clarifies exactly how they view supporters.9 -
As always, actions not words.
They sprinkled in a few pointless interviews with some platitudes to get some people on side, while we slide further and further into oblivion.
Will be two full seasons after this year, what do we have to show for it?3 -
More Grey hair and upset.SELR_addicks said:As always, actions not words.
They sprinkled in a few pointless interviews with some platitudes to get some people on side, while we slide further and further into oblivion.
Will be two full seasons after this year, what do we have to show for it?4 -
Nine seasons to go. No sensible business person would have bought the club from Sandgaard without it either. The chances of someone buying the club from the current owners without it are even lower. Meanwhile, they are just pissing money up the wall (or into the pockets of the management, if you prefer).alburyaddick said:
Airman - I never really understand your obsession with owning The Valley. If I was running the club ( and I’m pretty sure I’d be better than this lot) it would be very low down my list of prioritiesAirman Brown said:To which the proper response is, without the fans you don’t have a business. Particularly when you don’t own the assets either.
It’s dead money - no sensible business person would buy it.5 -
Ultimately, Greenwich are not the arbiters of whether the ground gets developed. If the club isn’t playing there or doesn’t exist, they won’t be in a position to prevent development. Roland doesn’t need the rent. His family can leave it empty until they can cash in. With the rent at £500k, even £25m from a developer is a good deal.alburyaddick said:
The money isn’t in a physical asset , that will always be valued as a property asset with little or no chance of development. The only money to be made in football ( if there is any at all !) is the TV money if you get promoted to the Premier Leaguemendonca said:
Owners won't pump serious money into the squad, as there's little to zero chance of selling the Club for a large profit without such a key asset. They're simply supplementing costs and losing money until they may tire of such a "Project". That's the logic behind the obsession, I believe.alburyaddick said:
Airman - I never really understand your obsession with owning The Valley. If I was running the club ( and I’m pretty sure I’d be better than this lot) it would be very low down my list of prioritiesAirman Brown said:To which the proper response is, without the fans you don’t have a business. Particularly when you don’t own the assets either.
It’s dead money - no sensible business person would buy it.
A lease extension will come at a price, which they may or may not be willing to pay, but allowing the lease to run down is a trap too.6 -
Have they/he not already passed up opportunities to turf us out and cash in during the various changes of ownership? Never got my head round the lease revisions and his signing off on them as he doesn't need the rentAirman Brown said:
Ultimately, Greenwich are not the arbiters of whether the ground gets developed. If the club isn’t playing there or doesn’t exist, they won’t be in a position to prevent development. Roland doesn’t need the rent. His family can leave it empty until they can cash in. With the rent at £500k, even £25m from a developer is a good deal.alburyaddick said:
The money isn’t in a physical asset , that will always be valued as a property asset with little or no chance of development. The only money to be made in football ( if there is any at all !) is the TV money if you get promoted to the Premier Leaguemendonca said:
Owners won't pump serious money into the squad, as there's little to zero chance of selling the Club for a large profit without such a key asset. They're simply supplementing costs and losing money until they may tire of such a "Project". That's the logic behind the obsession, I believe.alburyaddick said:
Airman - I never really understand your obsession with owning The Valley. If I was running the club ( and I’m pretty sure I’d be better than this lot) it would be very low down my list of prioritiesAirman Brown said:To which the proper response is, without the fans you don’t have a business. Particularly when you don’t own the assets either.
It’s dead money - no sensible business person would buy it.
A lease extension will come at a price, which they may or may not be willing to pay, but allowing the lease to run down is a trap too.1 -
There was only one lease revision. He was chiefly interested in offloading the operating costs, which Southall did for him. He was on the hook for the ex-director loans, which is why he then did a deal to revise the lease with TS in my opinion. If the club had gone under he would have had to pay out.swordfish said:
Have they/he not already passed up opportunities to turf us out and cash in during the various changes of ownership? Never got my head round the lease revisions and his signing off on them as he doesn't need the rentAirman Brown said:
Ultimately, Greenwich are not the arbiters of whether the ground gets developed. If the club isn’t playing there or doesn’t exist, they won’t be in a position to prevent development. Roland doesn’t need the rent. His family can leave it empty until they can cash in. With the rent at £500k, even £25m from a developer is a good deal.alburyaddick said:
The money isn’t in a physical asset , that will always be valued as a property asset with little or no chance of development. The only money to be made in football ( if there is any at all !) is the TV money if you get promoted to the Premier Leaguemendonca said:
Owners won't pump serious money into the squad, as there's little to zero chance of selling the Club for a large profit without such a key asset. They're simply supplementing costs and losing money until they may tire of such a "Project". That's the logic behind the obsession, I believe.alburyaddick said:
Airman - I never really understand your obsession with owning The Valley. If I was running the club ( and I’m pretty sure I’d be better than this lot) it would be very low down my list of prioritiesAirman Brown said:To which the proper response is, without the fans you don’t have a business. Particularly when you don’t own the assets either.
It’s dead money - no sensible business person would buy it.
A lease extension will come at a price, which they may or may not be willing to pay, but allowing the lease to run down is a trap too.There’s also a fair chance the club would have been bought out of administration which would have prevented any development, even if he had an appetite for it.4 -
That’s actually closer to what the valuation should be for The Valley & SL. If the owners could do a deal at that level, that would be a huge shift in Duchatelet’s position and a huge positive for them (and hopefully us).Airman Brown said:
Ultimately, Greenwich are not the arbiters of whether the ground gets developed. If the club isn’t playing there or doesn’t exist, they won’t be in a position to prevent development. Roland doesn’t need the rent. His family can leave it empty until they can cash in. With the rent at £500k, even £25m from a developer is a good deal.alburyaddick said:
The money isn’t in a physical asset , that will always be valued as a property asset with little or no chance of development. The only money to be made in football ( if there is any at all !) is the TV money if you get promoted to the Premier Leaguemendonca said:
Owners won't pump serious money into the squad, as there's little to zero chance of selling the Club for a large profit without such a key asset. They're simply supplementing costs and losing money until they may tire of such a "Project". That's the logic behind the obsession, I believe.alburyaddick said:
Airman - I never really understand your obsession with owning The Valley. If I was running the club ( and I’m pretty sure I’d be better than this lot) it would be very low down my list of prioritiesAirman Brown said:To which the proper response is, without the fans you don’t have a business. Particularly when you don’t own the assets either.
It’s dead money - no sensible business person would buy it.
A lease extension will come at a price, which they may or may not be willing to pay, but allowing the lease to run down is a trap too.5 -
Ahaaa - where do I start ?? - first of all the club needs proper leadership - someone we can all look to for guidance as to what we are all trying to achieve ( promotion(s) ) over what timescale , and how it is going to be achieved - what is the plan so we can all buy into it or at least understand. Communication remains poor. Some mutual understanding ( within reason) of our financial constraints would be helpful.drawnablank said:
What would you do that would make you better as owner of the club?alburyaddick said:
Airman - I never really understand your obsession with owning The Valley. If I was running the club ( and I’m pretty sure I’d be better than this lot) it would be very low down my list of prioritiesAirman Brown said:To which the proper response is, without the fans you don’t have a business. Particularly when you don’t own the assets either.
It’s dead money - no sensible business person would buy it.
Secondly, sound judgement and sensible decision making, there are numerous examples in the last few years but even the recent Kevin Nolan half time tribute was poorly executed. There is not enough collective club history knowledge around ( bring back Airman in an advisory capacity )
Thirdly, fourthly, fifthly , etc - with regard to the Team it is clear to anyone who watches every week that the squad is unbalanced with a lack of creativity, width and pace. The progression on the pitch is clearly downwards rather than upwards.
I could go on ………………………………………8 - Sponsored links:
-
It's a British thing to be obsessed with owning things. Most businesses lease their properties (offices/ restaurants / shops). Lease terms are important. but owning property isn't how most firms work. Even in football. look at West Ham etc.1
-
It would but that’s the end game when he or his family will take what they can get. In the meantime, they can keep asking for £50m, or more if someone offers that. Remember, that’s what he does.TelMc32 said:
That’s actually closer to what the valuation should be for The Valley & SL. If the owners could do a deal at that level, that would be a huge shift in Duchatelet’s position and a huge positive for them (and hopefully us).Airman Brown said:
Ultimately, Greenwich are not the arbiters of whether the ground gets developed. If the club isn’t playing there or doesn’t exist, they won’t be in a position to prevent development. Roland doesn’t need the rent. His family can leave it empty until they can cash in. With the rent at £500k, even £25m from a developer is a good deal.alburyaddick said:
The money isn’t in a physical asset , that will always be valued as a property asset with little or no chance of development. The only money to be made in football ( if there is any at all !) is the TV money if you get promoted to the Premier Leaguemendonca said:
Owners won't pump serious money into the squad, as there's little to zero chance of selling the Club for a large profit without such a key asset. They're simply supplementing costs and losing money until they may tire of such a "Project". That's the logic behind the obsession, I believe.alburyaddick said:
Airman - I never really understand your obsession with owning The Valley. If I was running the club ( and I’m pretty sure I’d be better than this lot) it would be very low down my list of prioritiesAirman Brown said:To which the proper response is, without the fans you don’t have a business. Particularly when you don’t own the assets either.
It’s dead money - no sensible business person would buy it.
A lease extension will come at a price, which they may or may not be willing to pay, but allowing the lease to run down is a trap too.6 -
So Scott has the responsibility of recruitment taking away from him and given to the manager Nathan Jones and CM as nothing to do with the football side of the club..yet fans just like blaming the same individuals even through their roles have changed..
5 -
That’s all well and good but our landlord hates our club and it’s supporters and the clock is ticking with 9 years left on the leasekafka said:It's a British thing to be obsessed with owning things. Most businesses lease their properties (offices/ restaurants / shops). Lease terms are important. but owning property isn't how most firms work. Even in football. look at West Ham etc.
As Airman said the rent we pay him is peanuts amongst his wealth so if he decides to lock the gates, mothball the ground and sit on his assets we are in serious trouble0 -
What guidance would you give and how would you deliver that?alburyaddick said:
Ahaaa - where do I start ?? - first of all the club needs proper leadership - someone we can all look to for guidance as to what we are all trying to achieve ( promotion(s) ) over what timescale , and how it is going to be achieved - what is the plan so we can all buy into it or at least understand. Communication remains poor. Some mutual understanding ( within reason) of our financial constraints would be helpful.drawnablank said:
What would you do that would make you better as owner of the club?alburyaddick said:
Airman - I never really understand your obsession with owning The Valley. If I was running the club ( and I’m pretty sure I’d be better than this lot) it would be very low down my list of prioritiesAirman Brown said:To which the proper response is, without the fans you don’t have a business. Particularly when you don’t own the assets either.
It’s dead money - no sensible business person would buy it.
Secondly, sound judgement and sensible decision making, there are numerous examples in the last few years but even the recent Kevin Nolan half time tribute was poorly executed. There is not enough collective club history knowledge around ( bring back Airman in an advisory capacity )
Thirdly, fourthly, fifthly , etc - with regard to the Team it is clear to anyone who watches every week that the squad is unbalanced with a lack of creativity, width and pace. The progression on the pitch is clearly downwards rather than upwards.
I could go on ………………………………………
What time scale would you implement and how would you make certain it is adhered to? (Does that match the budget available? If not, how would you create those opportunities?)
What would be your step by step POA and how much of it would you communicate publicly?
In terms of on pitch activity, what would you change or implement to get your desired on pitch results? How would you do it and how long will it take to be done?2 -
I guess neither you nor @alburyaddick listen to the Price of Football podcast. If you did you'd hear Kieran Maguire explaining around once a month why failing to own the assets is invariably a bad- sometimes catastrophic - place for an English club to be in. Recently he has been pointing out that even West Ham with their taxpayer-subsidised rent are starting to see the downsides. I expect Kretinsky will in the next five years make London an offer it will find difficult to refuse.kafka said:It's a British thing to be obsessed with owning things. Most businesses lease their properties (offices/ restaurants / shops). Lease terms are important. but owning property isn't how most firms work. Even in football. look at West Ham etc.5 -
All good challenges , but lets be fair, I’m not suggesting for a minute that this is either easy or immediate but the club is floundering like never before and needs strong executive direction and a plan that fans can buy intodrawnablank said:
What guidance would you give and how would you deliver that?alburyaddick said:
Ahaaa - where do I start ?? - first of all the club needs proper leadership - someone we can all look to for guidance as to what we are all trying to achieve ( promotion(s) ) over what timescale , and how it is going to be achieved - what is the plan so we can all buy into it or at least understand. Communication remains poor. Some mutual understanding ( within reason) of our financial constraints would be helpful.drawnablank said:
What would you do that would make you better as owner of the club?alburyaddick said:
Airman - I never really understand your obsession with owning The Valley. If I was running the club ( and I’m pretty sure I’d be better than this lot) it would be very low down my list of prioritiesAirman Brown said:To which the proper response is, without the fans you don’t have a business. Particularly when you don’t own the assets either.
It’s dead money - no sensible business person would buy it.
Secondly, sound judgement and sensible decision making, there are numerous examples in the last few years but even the recent Kevin Nolan half time tribute was poorly executed. There is not enough collective club history knowledge around ( bring back Airman in an advisory capacity )
Thirdly, fourthly, fifthly , etc - with regard to the Team it is clear to anyone who watches every week that the squad is unbalanced with a lack of creativity, width and pace. The progression on the pitch is clearly downwards rather than upwards.
I could go on ………………………………………
What time scale would you implement and how would you make certain it is adhered to? (Does that match the budget available? If not, how would you create those opportunities?)
What would be your step by step POA and how much of it would you communicate publicly?
In terms of on pitch activity, what would you change or implement to get your desired on pitch results? How would you do it and how long will it take to be done?0 -
Communication and decision-making is poor, but Methven is sensible enough to co-opt those willing to be co-opted, hence there is much less noise than there would be otherwise. However, you can only hide from outcomes for so long.8
-
kafka said:It's a British thing to be obsessed with owning things. Most businesses lease their properties (offices/ restaurants / shops). Lease terms are important. but owning property isn't how most firms work. Even in football. look at West Ham etc.
This seems an incredibly naive view. If you lease an office and your landlord puts the rent up/is a shit/doesn't renew then you have literally hundreds of other offices to choose from. Same with with shops. Hence tenants often only want 3-5yr leases as they prefer the flexibility it gives them.
Leisure premises like restaurants and cinemas etc is one of the few areas where longer 20-25yr leases are the norm. Why? Because business that occupy them spend a lot of money on their premises and want to amortise that over a lease. We are a leisure industry business with an exceptionally bespoke requirement.
If your football ground lease expires then what? You rent elsewhere? Or you fold? Or you spend hundreds of millions building a new stadium. Basically you are fucked. It is just not comparable.
West Ham have a 99 yr lease at absolutely give away terms. They are not comparable.
9 yrs left on the lease will put off most sensible investors.21 -
Airman Brown said:Communication and decision-making is poor, but Methven is sensible enough to co-opt those willing to be co-opted, hence there is much less noise than there would be otherwise. However, you can only hide from outcomes for so long.
He'll get found out eventually.
3 - Sponsored links:
-
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.1
-
I don’t think it is. I think his aim is to leverage the risk into a high sale price. Jimenez and Slater couldn’t interest him in their property plan, although given it was a fantasy that isn’t conclusive.ElfsborgAddick 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.
i do believe we could end up in a position where there is no one to meet his demands though.10 -
Airman Brown said:
I don’t think it is. I think his aim is to leverage the risk into a high sale price. Jimenez and Slater couldn’t interest him in their property plan, although given it was a fantasy that isn’t conclusive.ElfsborgAddick 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.
i do believe we could end up in a position where there is no one to meet his demands though.
Of course you know a LOT more than me, but am I very far off the mark?
0 -
Spin it however you like mate but the bottom line is that Methven and Scott along with Rodwell and others have been given the job of running the football club.RonnieMoore said:So Scott has the responsibility of recruitment taking away from him and given to the manager Nathan Jones and CM as nothing to do with the football side of the club..yet fans just like blaming the same individuals even through their roles have changed..
Last season was our lowest position for 98 years and this season is probably not going to be much better.
So fans will judge them on what they achieve and not on what they say.19 -
Like I said, lease terms are important. Does anyone know the renewal rights? Does is sit inside or outside the Act?Athletico Charlton said:kafka said:It's a British thing to be obsessed with owning things. Most businesses lease their properties (offices/ restaurants / shops). Lease terms are important. but owning property isn't how most firms work. Even in football. look at West Ham etc.
This seems an incredibly naive view. If you lease an office and your landlord puts the rent up/is a shit/doesn't renew then you have literally hundreds of other offices to choose from. Same with with shops. Hence tenants often only want 3-5yr leases as they prefer the flexibility it gives them.
Leisure premises like restaurants and cinemas etc is one of the few areas where longer 20-25yr leases are the norm. Why? Because business that occupy them spend a lot of money on their premises and want to amortise that over a lease. We are a leisure industry business with an exceptionally bespoke requirement.
If your football ground lease expires then what? You rent elsewhere? Or you fold? Or you spend hundreds of millions building a new stadium. Basically you are fucked. It is just not comparable.
West Ham have a 99 yr lease at absolutely give away terms. They are not comparable.
9 yrs left on the lease will put off most sensible investors.0 -
Nice try, but Scott and Methven hired NJ, so are ultimately responsible. They also hired Appleton and led us to the worst league position in 98 years. This season doesn’t look like being much better. However you spin it the SMT must own that record and hope they do the decent thing and leave.RonnieMoore said:So Scott has the responsibility of recruitment taking away from him and given to the manager Nathan Jones and CM as nothing to do with the football side of the club..yet fans just like blaming the same individuals even through their roles have changed..2 -
A new unicorn is an obvious place to start.drawnablank said:
What would you do that would make you better as owner of the club?alburyaddick said:
Airman - I never really understand your obsession with owning The Valley. If I was running the club ( and I’m pretty sure I’d be better than this lot) it would be very low down my list of prioritiesAirman Brown said:To which the proper response is, without the fans you don’t have a business. Particularly when you don’t own the assets either.
It’s dead money - no sensible business person would buy it.0 -
Surely somewhere in the Roland business empire there will be a balance sheet showing (probably) a £50 million investment on one side and borrowing for a similar amount on the other. Paying the interest on that borrowing will more or less likely be offset/covered by the incoming rent. Wiping out £25 million and claiming it’s a good deal might not necessarily find a lot of agreement. With interest rates more likely to come down than go up it would be far better to keep the tenants until such time the land has a realisable value much higher that the £50 million.Airman Brown said:
Ultimately, Greenwich are not the arbiters of whether the ground gets developed. If the club isn’t playing there or doesn’t exist, they won’t be in a position to prevent development. Roland doesn’t need the rent. His family can leave it empty until they can cash in. With the rent at £500k, even £25m from a developer is a good deal.alburyaddick said:
The money isn’t in a physical asset , that will always be valued as a property asset with little or no chance of development. The only money to be made in football ( if there is any at all !) is the TV money if you get promoted to the Premier Leaguemendonca said:
Owners won't pump serious money into the squad, as there's little to zero chance of selling the Club for a large profit without such a key asset. They're simply supplementing costs and losing money until they may tire of such a "Project". That's the logic behind the obsession, I believe.alburyaddick said:
Airman - I never really understand your obsession with owning The Valley. If I was running the club ( and I’m pretty sure I’d be better than this lot) it would be very low down my list of prioritiesAirman Brown said:To which the proper response is, without the fans you don’t have a business. Particularly when you don’t own the assets either.
It’s dead money - no sensible business person would buy it.
A lease extension will come at a price, which they may or may not be willing to pay, but allowing the lease to run down is a trap too.
0 -
As someone who knows precisely zero about this type of thing, how much of an issue is us getting a lease extension going to be?kafka said:
Like I said, lease terms are important. Does anyone know the renewal rights? Does is sit inside or outside the Act?Athletico Charlton said:kafka said:It's a British thing to be obsessed with owning things. Most businesses lease their properties (offices/ restaurants / shops). Lease terms are important. but owning property isn't how most firms work. Even in football. look at West Ham etc.
This seems an incredibly naive view. If you lease an office and your landlord puts the rent up/is a shit/doesn't renew then you have literally hundreds of other offices to choose from. Same with with shops. Hence tenants often only want 3-5yr leases as they prefer the flexibility it gives them.
Leisure premises like restaurants and cinemas etc is one of the few areas where longer 20-25yr leases are the norm. Why? Because business that occupy them spend a lot of money on their premises and want to amortise that over a lease. We are a leisure industry business with an exceptionally bespoke requirement.
If your football ground lease expires then what? You rent elsewhere? Or you fold? Or you spend hundreds of millions building a new stadium. Basically you are fucked. It is just not comparable.
West Ham have a 99 yr lease at absolutely give away terms. They are not comparable.
9 yrs left on the lease will put off most sensible investors.0 -
Does it matter to the power that is if we’re total crap? He can escape into a warm headspace contemplating how well Oxford United are doing.
I doubt our ‘leadership’ is ‘working’ for the minimum wage and bare expenses.0
