To which the proper response is, without the fans you don’t have a business. Particularly when you don’t own the assets either.
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 priorities It’s dead money - no sensible business person would buy it.
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.
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 League
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.
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.
Could the government target to build 3 million houses and Rayner's proposed shake up of the planning process play into Duchatelet's hands and place an existential threat on the club?
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.
Like I said, lease terms are important. Does anyone know the renewal rights? Does is sit inside or outside the Act?
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?
Depends upon how committed the Labour government will be to go anywhere near meeting its ambitious home/house building targets. Compulsory purchase of the housing stock in Floyd Road and Harvey Gardens for example (if they are privately owned) and add the Valley in and that’s a significant site by a railway station without the problem of how high they can build because of the views of the neighbours.
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
Our current predicament is a catastrophe for this ownership group. Wasn't it Methven that recently said CAFC can't work as a league one club? No doubt his strategy was to have the ground steadily filling up week after week as we mounted a charge. The commercial side on the up as local businesses looked to get back involved with a resurgent Charlton Athletic. But what now? The only opportunity he's really had to showcase any sort of meaningful event was the Wrexham game and he went all out for that. But as yet another season falls into the abyss with ever dwindling attendances while the support base finds better things to do with their Saturdays, What stomach do this lot have for yet another rebrand?
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.
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.
Like I said, lease terms are important. Does anyone know the renewal rights? Does is sit inside or outside the Act?
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?
All depends on what's written in the lease. Sangaard hired expensive lawyers, so you would think they did a proper job on protecting his interests (and the subsequent DD of the current owners). If it sits outside the protection of the Landlord & Tenants Act, then we are screwed. It's basic property law but with a leasehold business, the wording of the lease is everything. Anyone got a copy? It would take a 10 minute scan to see how screwed or not we are.
To which the proper response is, without the fans you don’t have a business. Particularly when you don’t own the assets either.
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 priorities It’s dead money - no sensible business person would buy it.
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.
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 League
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.
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.
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).
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.
As Kafka positions it is all in the terms of the Leasehold. On the basis of the nature of the Clear Ocean Capital - Staprix NV transaction and the Legal Firm acting for Sandgaard a failure to secure protection under the Landlord & Tenants Act would probably present as an oversight too far.
That said any tenancy can come with its problem and would be seen by some as a barrier to investment. Put simply the ownership of a Stadium presents as a guarantee to investors of the ability to trade/ operate without interference within facilities specifically designed for the nature of your trading operations.
The ownership of The Valley presents as a guarantee to investors of the ability to trade/ operate within facilities specifically designed for the nature of your trading operations within your historic market and primary catchment area.
It is precisely why Staprix NV had I believed internally positioned its valuation of said assets at the level of costs any new party would face in having to acquire the land and build a comparable facility within such a trading location. Those costs will only rise. To put it bluntly it is hostage pricing.
A hostage pricing valuation which will continue to ease the pain to the Staprix NV balance sheet which with the shareholding in Baton 2010 Limited and the ESI exit plan was probably closer to £70-80mn.
Staprix NV will have used best efforts to use the debt to write down corporate profits for tax purposes and will ultimately assumed it into the investment funding of the company against the corporate asset portfolio. The Duchatelet dynasty will no doubt continue to invest its significant liquidity surpluses in light of assumed continuing Melexis dividends.
As for us as it stands any investors can acquire the club, invest in successive promotions yet within a few years be left with potentially having to fight to retain the industry specific facilities from which to trade appropriately within it’s primary market.
Staprix NV can’t lose. If the club fails the land becomes unencumbered. If the club succeeds the value of the Stadium to the investors in terms of future revenues only increases for which the landlords as per St Truiden will likely seek a proportionate dividend.
I suggest the priority for any new owners will be to extend the nature of the current leaseholds. As for acquiring the freeholds I don’t think the case for external investment will ever stand. The one possible solace is if the club had 4 or 5 seasons in the PL it may have to access to the resources and a decision to make in choosing to restore its heritage.
To be clear, the lease sits outside the Act - there is no right of renewal. This is explicit in its terms.
We need to bear in mind that while the lease was amended at the time Clear Ocean Capital acquired CAFC Limited, it is still ESI’s lease.
Sandgaard’s acquisition was fundamentally foolhardy, even if it was done with the best of intentions. His assumptions about the business were hopelessly optimistic, just like those of his predecessors and successors. He wouldn’t have been deterred by the fact the lease sat outside the Act, even when his lawyers explained it to him. It doesn’t require the lawyers to have made an oversight - just Sandgaard to be naive, which he certainly was.
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.
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.
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, if Two Shats was to bank on getting planning permission at some point down the line, he could refuse to extend the lease and when we'd been outed to ground share with some team miles away, people would just shrug and say, 'it wasn't their ground anyway'.
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.
No, but a development on the Valley would have more then 150 units, and would get called in by City Hall, there is not a cat in hells chance if the club is playing that it would get through a mayor of any party
To be clear, the lease sits outside the Act - there is no right of renewal. This is explicit in its terms.
We need to bear in mind that while the lease was amended at the time Clear Ocean Capital acquired CAFC Limited, it is still ESI’s lease.
Sandgaard’s acquisition was fundamentally foolhardy, even if it was done with the best of intentions. His assumptions about the business were hopelessly optimistic, just like those of his predecessors and successors. He wouldn’t have been deterred by the fact the lease sat outside the Act, even when his lawyers explained it to him. It doesn’t require the lawyers to have made an oversight - just Sandgaard to be naive, which he certainly was.
Thank you for the clarity. Hugely disappointing though it is.
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.
To be clear, the lease sits outside the Act - there is no right of renewal. This is explicit in its terms.
We need to bear in mind that while the lease was amended at the time Clear Ocean Capital acquired CAFC Limited, it is still ESI’s lease.
Sandgaard’s acquisition was fundamentally foolhardy, even if it was done with the best of intentions. His assumptions about the business were hopelessly optimistic, just like those of his predecessors and successors. He wouldn’t have been deterred by the fact the lease sat outside the Act, even when his lawyers explained it to him. It doesn’t require the lawyers to have made an oversight - just Sandgaard to be naive, which he certainly was.
Thank you for the clarity. Hugely disappointing though it is.
This is from the original lease. There is nothing which changes it in the variation. For those unclear what it means: “The right to renewal is outlined in Section 24 of the Act, it establishes the right of business tenants to apply for a new tenancy upon the expiry of their existing lease. This provision grants tenants to security of tenure, ensuring they have the opportunity to continue their occupancy of the premises for ongoing business operations. However, if these sections are being excluded by a lease, the tenant will not have security of tenure and will therefore lose the automatic right to renew the lease at the end of the term. Tenants may face the risk of losing the premises if the landlord decides not to renew the lease or offers less favourable terms upon renewal.”
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?
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...
For all his faults, the responsibility for the dreadful football on display doesn't rest with Methven, as he's not responsible for the bizarre formations, crude 1980s Wimbledon tactics and signing Nathan Jones' old boys.
He sort of is though. NJ will have had to present the style of play he wants to make and the type of players he would bring in during his interview(s)
Methven isn't responsible for the playing side, that's Scott and Rodwell.
And even with the latter 2, it's not as if Jones said he was going to deliver ineffective hoofball in his interview.
We have much better players than Crawley. But badly coached and managed.
I just don't believe he doesn't get involved in the football side at all.
I agree that NJ probably didn't quite say this was his plan. The reality is probably somewhere between what we've both said
Ive attended afew U21 matches, CM was there each time
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...
For all his faults, the responsibility for the dreadful football on display doesn't rest with Methven, as he's not responsible for the bizarre formations, crude 1980s Wimbledon tactics and signing Nathan Jones' old boys.
He sort of is though. NJ will have had to present the style of play he wants to make and the type of players he would bring in during his interview(s)
Methven isn't responsible for the playing side, that's Scott and Rodwell.
And even with the latter 2, it's not as if Jones said he was going to deliver ineffective hoofball in his interview.
We have much better players than Crawley. But badly coached and managed.
I just don't believe he doesn't get involved in the football side at all.
I agree that NJ probably didn't quite say this was his plan. The reality is probably somewhere between what we've both said
Ive attended afew U21 matches, CM was there each time
Good, that means he’s taking an interest. I don’t have a problem with any staff watching any of our teams play. That should be encouraged. The issue is if he’s making granular decisions about football
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...
hahahahahahaha
Top of the agenda...................but they are in no rush.
For all his faults, the responsibility for the dreadful football on display doesn't rest with Methven, as he's not responsible for the bizarre formations, crude 1980s Wimbledon tactics and signing Nathan Jones' old boys.
He sort of is though. NJ will have had to present the style of play he wants to make and the type of players he would bring in during his interview(s)
Methven isn't responsible for the playing side, that's Scott and Rodwell.
And even with the latter 2, it's not as if Jones said he was going to deliver ineffective hoofball in his interview.
We have much better players than Crawley. But badly coached and managed.
I just don't believe he doesn't get involved in the football side at all.
I agree that NJ probably didn't quite say this was his plan. The reality is probably somewhere between what we've both said
Ive attended afew U21 matches, CM was there each time
That explains Mr Avory leaving, Methven is now coaching the development squads!
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...
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.
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.
Comments
Wasn't it Methven that recently said CAFC can't work as a league one club?
No doubt his strategy was to have the ground steadily filling up week after week as we mounted a charge. The commercial side on the up as local businesses looked to get back involved with a resurgent Charlton Athletic.
But what now?
The only opportunity he's really had to showcase any sort of meaningful event was the Wrexham game and he went all out for that.
But as yet another season falls into the abyss with ever dwindling attendances while the support base finds better things to do with their Saturdays, What stomach do this lot have for yet another rebrand?
besides, how many of the local electorate are Charlton fans ? I doubt it’s that many these days.
That said any tenancy can come with its problem and would be seen by some as a barrier to investment. Put simply the ownership of a Stadium presents as a guarantee to investors of the ability to trade/ operate without interference within facilities specifically designed for the nature of your trading operations.
The ownership of The Valley presents as a guarantee to investors of the ability to trade/ operate within facilities specifically designed for the nature of your trading operations within your historic market and primary catchment area.
It is precisely why Staprix NV had I believed internally positioned its valuation of said assets at the level of costs any new party would face in having to acquire the land and build a comparable facility within such a trading location. Those costs will only rise. To put it bluntly it is hostage pricing.
A hostage pricing valuation which will continue to ease the pain to the Staprix NV balance sheet which with the shareholding in Baton 2010 Limited and the ESI exit plan was probably closer to £70-80mn.
Staprix NV will have used best efforts to use the debt to write down corporate profits for tax purposes and will ultimately assumed it into the investment funding of the company against the corporate asset portfolio. The Duchatelet dynasty will no doubt continue to invest its significant liquidity surpluses in light of assumed continuing Melexis dividends.
Staprix NV can’t lose. If the club fails the land becomes unencumbered. If the club succeeds the value of the Stadium to the investors in terms of future revenues only increases for which the landlords as per St Truiden will likely seek a proportionate dividend.
I suggest the priority for any new owners will be to extend the nature of the current leaseholds. As for acquiring the freeholds I don’t think the case for external investment will ever stand. The one possible solace is if the club had 4 or 5 seasons in the PL it may have to access to the resources and a decision to make in choosing to restore its heritage.
I doubt I will be around to see it.
Sandgaard’s acquisition was fundamentally foolhardy, even if it was done with the best of intentions. His assumptions about the business were hopelessly optimistic, just like those of his predecessors and successors. He wouldn’t have been deterred by the fact the lease sat outside the Act, even when his lawyers explained it to him. It doesn’t require the lawyers to have made an oversight - just Sandgaard to be naive, which he certainly was.
I admire your optimism. Just wish I shared it.
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.
This is from the original lease. There is nothing which changes it in the variation.
For those unclear what it means:
“The right to renewal is outlined in Section 24 of the Act, it establishes the right of business tenants to apply for a new tenancy upon the expiry of their existing lease. This provision grants tenants to security of tenure, ensuring they have the opportunity to continue their occupancy of the premises for ongoing business operations. However, if these sections are being excluded by a lease, the tenant will not have security of tenure and will therefore lose the automatic right to renew the lease at the end of the term. Tenants may face the risk of losing the premises if the landlord decides not to renew the lease or offers less favourable terms upon renewal.”
rush as we have an excellent agreement in place and still 9/10 years left on the lease...
That explains Mr Avory leaving, Methven is now coaching the development squads!