Valley and Sparrows Lane lease extended to 2040
Comments
-
I've heard Everton fans who go moan about the new ground, middle of nowhere. The view from the lower tier at Arsenal is shocking and as for West Ham, terrible terrible ground.1
-
Fairly sure that the selling off of that land on Lansdowne Mews for housing means that we won’t be able to ever join the corners up now. Can’t remember which regime sold it off but sure Airman wrote about it before.TootingRedArmy said:We need Roland out, and I hope the owners will focus on this. Yes they have lease but hopefully looking at ways to buy him out, owning Valley and training ground with the team is only way forward in the long term. The Valley is a brilliant stadium, The Jimmy Seed stand gives us plenty of opportunity to expand and complete the stadium, joining the ES & WS stands. A Valley with 30-35K maximum is achievable without great expense. There is no point getting ahead of ourselves we need to establish our position in Championship for a few seasons and hopefully then push on.1 -
Pleased we are secure in playing at The Valley for another 15 years. We have a better stadium than Palace, Millwall and West Ham, imo, which is pretty cool when you think about it.2
-
We already have 10 years to go. This is an extension of another 5 years and where we were back in 2020thewolfboy said:Pleased we are secure in playing at The Valley for another 15 years. We have a better stadium than Palace, Millwall and West Ham, imo, which is pretty cool when you think about it.0 -
Catching up on the thread....but this was agreed, published on our own website and by the bbc, but then never happened? How strange?! I would call "bullshit" but what would i know? "It is what it is" as Lee Bowyer used to to say lolAirman Brown said:
This was agreed but never happened.YTS1978 said:
From BBC at the time:SoundAsa£ said:
Cannot open?YTS1978 said:A quick Google finds this...so i was kind of right. Seems like a lifetime ago!
https://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/mobile/football/teams/c/charlton_athletic/8001820.stm
Charlton have sold their training ground to the club's directors in an attempt to inject money into the club.
The deal for £1.5m sees three sites used for training sold to chairman Richard Murray and honorary life president Sir Maurice Hatter.
Murray told the club's official website: "It might look like asset-stripping is going on, but that certainly isn't the case."
Charlton are bottom of the Championship, 12 points from safety.
The sale of the club's training ground, the Community Trust's Charlton Park rugby ground and the youth academy's Pippenhall sports ground was approved by Charlton plc shareholders on Wednesday.
Murray's Alliance Trust Pensions Limited and Sir Maurice's registered charity, The Maurice Hatter Foundation, made the purchases.
"The three key points are that the assets are in friendly hands, it's a 25-year lease, and if the club wants the facilities back, it can buy them back," said Murray.
"The three resolutions were all approved, so that was good. We explained the logic behind the decisions, and that Charlton won't suffer but will only benefit."
"The 25-year lease means the club has security of tenure and if, by any chance, the club came into some money which it wanted to invest back into the training ground, it's got an option to buy the training ground back."
"As most people will be aware, the directors have pumped a lot of money into the club and unfortunately, people like myself have just come to the end of their financial clout."
A residential site owned by the club near to the Valley, Lansdowne Mews, has also been sold as part of the deal to Bob Whitehand.
Definitely not asset stripping!
The reason the assets were separated from the football company in 1992 was to protect them if the football company went bust - nothing more, nothing less. Holdings was a wholly owned subsidiary of the PLC (it had the same owners as the football company at all times). The PLC became Baton 2010 and Roland sold the football company out of it in 2020.0 -
I posted that story earlier in the thread which included the selling of the training grounds and landsdowne mews. Airman said it wasnt true, but I think he was specifically replying to the training facilities, not the housing.matt88 said:
Fairly sure that the selling off of that land on Lansdowne Mews for housing means that we won’t be able to ever join the corners up now. Can’t remember which regime sold it off but sure Airman wrote about it before.TootingRedArmy said:We need Roland out, and I hope the owners will focus on this. Yes they have lease but hopefully looking at ways to buy him out, owning Valley and training ground with the team is only way forward in the long term. The Valley is a brilliant stadium, The Jimmy Seed stand gives us plenty of opportunity to expand and complete the stadium, joining the ES & WS stands. A Valley with 30-35K maximum is achievable without great expense. There is no point getting ahead of ourselves we need to establish our position in Championship for a few seasons and hopefully then push on.0 -
From memory, and therefore probably wrong, I thought the housing built behind meant that we could never extend East Stand (as in double tier to match West), but there would be space for the corners of Jimmy Seed.matt88 said:
Fairly sure that the selling off of that land on Lansdowne Mews for housing means that we won’t be able to ever join the corners up now. Can’t remember which regime sold it off but sure Airman wrote about it before.TootingRedArmy said:We need Roland out, and I hope the owners will focus on this. Yes they have lease but hopefully looking at ways to buy him out, owning Valley and training ground with the team is only way forward in the long term. The Valley is a brilliant stadium, The Jimmy Seed stand gives us plenty of opportunity to expand and complete the stadium, joining the ES & WS stands. A Valley with 30-35K maximum is achievable without great expense. There is no point getting ahead of ourselves we need to establish our position in Championship for a few seasons and hopefully then push on.3 -
LargeAddick said:
You do realise we are American owned?TootingRedArmy said:Charlton fans fought long and hard to bring our club back to The Valley, thanks to endeavours of our fan base and there’s no reason to ever move away. Let’s hope one day we get the right owner or investment to finally complete the stadium and connect all four sides.
The first goal, of course, is to re-establish Charlton as a solid Championship club after nine years in League One (bar one!). American investment seems the likely route, like it or not, that’s where the EFL is heading, with clubs like Wrexham and Birmingham leading the way.
Charlton remains a fantastic opportunity for any investor: a proud London club with history, potential, and passionate support. Get it right on the pitch, and the crowds will follow and The Valley can be developed into a 30-35K stadium with not excessive costs. COYA's
TOOTING RED ARMY : YES thanks, I know we are American owned, I was trying to say that our owners or other investors hopefully can be put $$$$££££ into our club and effectively buy back the Valley so it can be developed. I don't know what might be permitted, whether JS can be joined to ES + WS or JS or any of the other stands can be enlarged. I remember plans for a 40K Valley? but 35K would be fine if its possible to develop the Valley's capacity?
ATM the Valley is a perfect iconic Championship ground, I doubt we will see a sell out this season unless we have a charge to the Play Offs at the end of the season.
The main focus has to be investing in Jones and the team but The Valley's future needs to be sorted out ideally and not put to bottom of the in-try and we get shot of that ageing Belguim fool Roland finally .....0 -
Arsenal are rumoured to be looking at playing at Wembley whilst they redevelop the EmiratesBrentfordAddick said:I've heard Everton fans who go moan about the new ground, middle of nowhere. The view from the lower tier at Arsenal is shocking and as for West Ham, terrible terrible ground.2 -
Peter Varney said last year when he saw the Lego Valley that the plans could still happen in full, second tier on the Curbs and corners filled in, I could be wrong but pretty sure he was quoted as saying it was all still possible, just might mean building an entrance to the Curbs (upper?) in the south east corner or something like that. All the detail was in the article.stoneroses19 said:
From memory, and therefore probably wrong, I thought the housing built behind meant that we could never extend East Stand (as in double tier to match West), but there would be space for the corners of Jimmy Seed.matt88 said:
Fairly sure that the selling off of that land on Lansdowne Mews for housing means that we won’t be able to ever join the corners up now. Can’t remember which regime sold it off but sure Airman wrote about it before.TootingRedArmy said:We need Roland out, and I hope the owners will focus on this. Yes they have lease but hopefully looking at ways to buy him out, owning Valley and training ground with the team is only way forward in the long term. The Valley is a brilliant stadium, The Jimmy Seed stand gives us plenty of opportunity to expand and complete the stadium, joining the ES & WS stands. A Valley with 30-35K maximum is achievable without great expense. There is no point getting ahead of ourselves we need to establish our position in Championship for a few seasons and hopefully then push on.1 - Sponsored links:
-
There is absolutely no incentive for Roland to negotiate in earnest. The Valley is a single use asset with a single potential buyer who has a lot of reasons not to move and is a sunk cost for him. As long as he is getting rental payments, and is not experiencing financial difficulties, why would he negotiate. He holds all the leverage. There are really only two potential purchase outcomes. 1) we get into the premier league and become established enough there that Roland’s asking price becomes financially feasible 2)we get to the end of the lease and seriously consider moving forcing him to negotiate but we still need owners at the time that who would be willing to pay over market value. The second option is unlikely given the owners would either be paying a significant sum for the Valley or a significant sum to develop a new stadium. Neither of which would have any kind of financial ROI unless you are in the premier league1
-
Moving out would play into his hands - he could then get planning permission. We should never move out and the fact he has extended by 5 years suggests he doesn't intend to turf us out. He might have had some wacky ideas and he may be getting some of his own back now but i don't believe he would want to go through the aggravation that turfing us out would cause and i also don't believe that making money at all costs is part of his make up.Bostonaddick said:There is absolutely no incentive for Roland to negotiate in earnest. The Valley is a single use asset with a single potential buyer who has a lot of reasons not to move and is a sunk cost for him. As long as he is getting rental payments, and is not experiencing financial difficulties, why would he negotiate. He holds all the leverage. There are really only two potential purchase outcomes. 1) we get into the premier league and become established enough there that Roland’s asking price becomes financially feasible 2)we get to the end of the lease and seriously consider moving forcing him to negotiate but we still need owners at the time that who would be willing to pay over market value. The second option is unlikely given the owners would either be paying a significant sum for the Valley or a significant sum to develop a new stadium. Neither of which would have any kind of financial ROI unless you are in the premier league0 -
The board (the parent company to be clear) sold the land for the housing direct. It didn’t go through Bob Whitehand’s company as agreed by the shareholders. Those transactions never completed. Sparrows Lane was never transferred at all.YTS1978 said:
I posted that story earlier in the thread which included the selling of the training grounds and landsdowne mews. Airman said it wasnt true, but I think he was specifically replying to the training facilities, not the housing.matt88 said:
Fairly sure that the selling off of that land on Lansdowne Mews for housing means that we won’t be able to ever join the corners up now. Can’t remember which regime sold it off but sure Airman wrote about it before.TootingRedArmy said:We need Roland out, and I hope the owners will focus on this. Yes they have lease but hopefully looking at ways to buy him out, owning Valley and training ground with the team is only way forward in the long term. The Valley is a brilliant stadium, The Jimmy Seed stand gives us plenty of opportunity to expand and complete the stadium, joining the ES & WS stands. A Valley with 30-35K maximum is achievable without great expense. There is no point getting ahead of ourselves we need to establish our position in Championship for a few seasons and hopefully then push on.
Famously, (senior) staff were not told the land at Lansdowne Mews had been sold (under Waggott as chief exec) and got onto a dispute with the purchaser over its use for disabled parking.4 -
It’s problematic because of the narrowing of Lansdowne Mews exit. It may not be impossible.matt88 said:
Fairly sure that the selling off of that land on Lansdowne Mews for housing means that we won’t be able to ever join the corners up now. Can’t remember which regime sold it off but sure Airman wrote about it before.TootingRedArmy said:We need Roland out, and I hope the owners will focus on this. Yes they have lease but hopefully looking at ways to buy him out, owning Valley and training ground with the team is only way forward in the long term. The Valley is a brilliant stadium, The Jimmy Seed stand gives us plenty of opportunity to expand and complete the stadium, joining the ES & WS stands. A Valley with 30-35K maximum is achievable without great expense. There is no point getting ahead of ourselves we need to establish our position in Championship for a few seasons and hopefully then push on.1 -
Err you need to check your facts. The football company was sold by Roland to ESI in January 2020.Weegie Addick said:
Err the football company wasn’t Roland’s to sell in 2020? That was Sandgaard buying from ESI 1 despite the injunction by ESI 2?Airman Brown said:
This was agreed but never happened.YTS1978 said:
From BBC at the time:SoundAsa£ said:
Cannot open?YTS1978 said:A quick Google finds this...so i was kind of right. Seems like a lifetime ago!
https://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/mobile/football/teams/c/charlton_athletic/8001820.stmCharlton have sold their training ground to the club's directors in an attempt to inject money into the club.
The deal for £1.5m sees three sites used for training sold to chairman Richard Murray and honorary life president Sir Maurice Hatter.
Murray told the club's official website: "It might look like asset-stripping is going on, but that certainly isn't the case."
Charlton are bottom of the Championship, 12 points from safety.
The sale of the club's training ground, the Community Trust's Charlton Park rugby ground and the youth academy's Pippenhall sports ground was approved by Charlton plc shareholders on Wednesday.
Murray's Alliance Trust Pensions Limited and Sir Maurice's registered charity, The Maurice Hatter Foundation, made the purchases.
"The three key points are that the assets are in friendly hands, it's a 25-year lease, and if the club wants the facilities back, it can buy them back," said Murray.
"The three resolutions were all approved, so that was good. We explained the logic behind the decisions, and that Charlton won't suffer but will only benefit."
"The 25-year lease means the club has security of tenure and if, by any chance, the club came into some money which it wanted to invest back into the training ground, it's got an option to buy the training ground back."
"As most people will be aware, the directors have pumped a lot of money into the club and unfortunately, people like myself have just come to the end of their financial clout."
A residential site owned by the club near to the Valley, Lansdowne Mews, has also been sold as part of the deal to Bob Whitehand.
Definitely not asset stripping!
The reason the assets were separated from the football company in 1992 was to protect them if the football company went bust - nothing more, nothing less. Holdings was a wholly owned subsidiary of the PLC (it had the same owners as the football company at all times). The PLC became Baton 2010 and Roland sold the football company out of it in 2020.
This is also why the 15 year lease ran until a date in January 2035. You are confusing the publicity with the transaction.2 -
IIRC there was a shareholder meeting to agree to the transfer. This is the basis of the report. But the board subsequently changed its mind. The directors were under no obligation to act on the permission. It’s a bit like agreeing to buying a house and pulling out.YTS1978 said:
Catching up on the thread....but this was agreed, published on our own website and by the bbc, but then never happened? How strange?! I would call "bullshit" but what would i know? "It is what it is" as Lee Bowyer used to to say lolAirman Brown said:
This was agreed but never happened.YTS1978 said:
From BBC at the time:SoundAsa£ said:
Cannot open?YTS1978 said:A quick Google finds this...so i was kind of right. Seems like a lifetime ago!
https://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/mobile/football/teams/c/charlton_athletic/8001820.stmCharlton have sold their training ground to the club's directors in an attempt to inject money into the club.
The deal for £1.5m sees three sites used for training sold to chairman Richard Murray and honorary life president Sir Maurice Hatter.
Murray told the club's official website: "It might look like asset-stripping is going on, but that certainly isn't the case."
Charlton are bottom of the Championship, 12 points from safety.
The sale of the club's training ground, the Community Trust's Charlton Park rugby ground and the youth academy's Pippenhall sports ground was approved by Charlton plc shareholders on Wednesday.
Murray's Alliance Trust Pensions Limited and Sir Maurice's registered charity, The Maurice Hatter Foundation, made the purchases.
"The three key points are that the assets are in friendly hands, it's a 25-year lease, and if the club wants the facilities back, it can buy them back," said Murray.
"The three resolutions were all approved, so that was good. We explained the logic behind the decisions, and that Charlton won't suffer but will only benefit."
"The 25-year lease means the club has security of tenure and if, by any chance, the club came into some money which it wanted to invest back into the training ground, it's got an option to buy the training ground back."
"As most people will be aware, the directors have pumped a lot of money into the club and unfortunately, people like myself have just come to the end of their financial clout."
A residential site owned by the club near to the Valley, Lansdowne Mews, has also been sold as part of the deal to Bob Whitehand.
Definitely not asset stripping!
The reason the assets were separated from the football company in 1992 was to protect them if the football company went bust - nothing more, nothing less. Holdings was a wholly owned subsidiary of the PLC (it had the same owners as the football company at all times). The PLC became Baton 2010 and Roland sold the football company out of it in 2020.0 -
Sale in 2019 but ratified by the EFL in 2020 no? Unless the sale didn't officially go through until the EFL said yes?Airman Brown said:
Err you need to check your facts. The football company was sold by Roland to ESI in January 2020.Weegie Addick said:
Err the football company wasn’t Roland’s to sell in 2020? That was Sandgaard buying from ESI 1 despite the injunction by ESI 2?Airman Brown said:
This was agreed but never happened.YTS1978 said:
From BBC at the time:SoundAsa£ said:
Cannot open?YTS1978 said:A quick Google finds this...so i was kind of right. Seems like a lifetime ago!
https://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/mobile/football/teams/c/charlton_athletic/8001820.stmCharlton have sold their training ground to the club's directors in an attempt to inject money into the club.
The deal for £1.5m sees three sites used for training sold to chairman Richard Murray and honorary life president Sir Maurice Hatter.
Murray told the club's official website: "It might look like asset-stripping is going on, but that certainly isn't the case."
Charlton are bottom of the Championship, 12 points from safety.
The sale of the club's training ground, the Community Trust's Charlton Park rugby ground and the youth academy's Pippenhall sports ground was approved by Charlton plc shareholders on Wednesday.
Murray's Alliance Trust Pensions Limited and Sir Maurice's registered charity, The Maurice Hatter Foundation, made the purchases.
"The three key points are that the assets are in friendly hands, it's a 25-year lease, and if the club wants the facilities back, it can buy them back," said Murray.
"The three resolutions were all approved, so that was good. We explained the logic behind the decisions, and that Charlton won't suffer but will only benefit."
"The 25-year lease means the club has security of tenure and if, by any chance, the club came into some money which it wanted to invest back into the training ground, it's got an option to buy the training ground back."
"As most people will be aware, the directors have pumped a lot of money into the club and unfortunately, people like myself have just come to the end of their financial clout."
A residential site owned by the club near to the Valley, Lansdowne Mews, has also been sold as part of the deal to Bob Whitehand.
Definitely not asset stripping!
The reason the assets were separated from the football company in 1992 was to protect them if the football company went bust - nothing more, nothing less. Holdings was a wholly owned subsidiary of the PLC (it had the same owners as the football company at all times). The PLC became Baton 2010 and Roland sold the football company out of it in 2020.
This is also why the 15 year lease ran until a date in January 2035. You are confusing the publicity with the transaction.1 -
The sale was completed in January 2020. Roland ceased to control the football company on January 23rd. The new directors were appointed the same day. Hence the lease date.fenaddick said:
Sale in 2019 but ratified by the EFL in 2020 no? Unless the sale didn't officially go through until the EFL said yes?Airman Brown said:
Err you need to check your facts. The football company was sold by Roland to ESI in January 2020.Weegie Addick said:
Err the football company wasn’t Roland’s to sell in 2020? That was Sandgaard buying from ESI 1 despite the injunction by ESI 2?Airman Brown said:
This was agreed but never happened.YTS1978 said:
From BBC at the time:SoundAsa£ said:
Cannot open?YTS1978 said:A quick Google finds this...so i was kind of right. Seems like a lifetime ago!
https://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/mobile/football/teams/c/charlton_athletic/8001820.stmCharlton have sold their training ground to the club's directors in an attempt to inject money into the club.
The deal for £1.5m sees three sites used for training sold to chairman Richard Murray and honorary life president Sir Maurice Hatter.
Murray told the club's official website: "It might look like asset-stripping is going on, but that certainly isn't the case."
Charlton are bottom of the Championship, 12 points from safety.
The sale of the club's training ground, the Community Trust's Charlton Park rugby ground and the youth academy's Pippenhall sports ground was approved by Charlton plc shareholders on Wednesday.
Murray's Alliance Trust Pensions Limited and Sir Maurice's registered charity, The Maurice Hatter Foundation, made the purchases.
"The three key points are that the assets are in friendly hands, it's a 25-year lease, and if the club wants the facilities back, it can buy them back," said Murray.
"The three resolutions were all approved, so that was good. We explained the logic behind the decisions, and that Charlton won't suffer but will only benefit."
"The 25-year lease means the club has security of tenure and if, by any chance, the club came into some money which it wanted to invest back into the training ground, it's got an option to buy the training ground back."
"As most people will be aware, the directors have pumped a lot of money into the club and unfortunately, people like myself have just come to the end of their financial clout."
A residential site owned by the club near to the Valley, Lansdowne Mews, has also been sold as part of the deal to Bob Whitehand.
Definitely not asset stripping!
The reason the assets were separated from the football company in 1992 was to protect them if the football company went bust - nothing more, nothing less. Holdings was a wholly owned subsidiary of the PLC (it had the same owners as the football company at all times). The PLC became Baton 2010 and Roland sold the football company out of it in 2020.
This is also why the 15 year lease ran until a date in January 2035. You are confusing the publicity with the transaction.What the club announces and what happens are sometimes two different things - see above!
Also the deal was never ratified by the EFL, which doesn’t prevent it happening. It just leads, for example, to the transfer embargo because there was never proof of funds provided. The EFL cannot stop transactions.3 -
The Belgian owns the land. Until this changes our hands are tied.SoundAsa£ said:
Why do you say that Elfie?ElfsborgAddick said:TootingRedArmy said:
I think 3 Prem teams are in literally a different league! Out of those 3 only Everton fans can be really happy with new stadium, Hammers London stadium is a souless awful athletics track, Arsenal no way is it better than Highbury. I of course know why those three and others moved to "modern bigger stadium" ....more seats, hospitiality, revenue etc.raytreacy said:TootingRedArmy said:All I know is I never want to see Charlton play anywhere but The Valley. I was there for the last game in 1984 and that unforgettable return against Pompey, moments that define what Home really means. So a 15-year lease feels like a lifeline and lifetime in football years. Whatever the future brings, The Valley is where Charlton Athletic belongs. In a world of oligarchs, sheikhs and super-rich owners, it’s good to know our heart still beats in SE7. Where will Charlton be in 2040, none of us knows, EFL or Prem may have really sold its soul long before then an doing an "NFL style" with some league games played Stateside and in Saudi by then...... Cue Wings "Mull of Valley-tyre"I never want to leave the Valley, but neither did a lot of supporters of West Ham, Arsenal, Everton etc. But things change. If we left the Valley to go to a brand new stadium that would increase our revenue and chances of progressing I would take it. But The Valley is more than big enough for us at the moment.
The Valley has lots of potential to increase to 40K If needed but that would only be with a decent run in the Premership. I would love to see ES & WS connected to JS stand so its its fully connected on all sides to make it @ 30K+ capacity. This is all academic whilst Roland holds the keys.He will always be a serious problem and hinder our progress whilst he owns The Valley.Unlikely I know, but if we were promoted this season and spent the following four seasons selling out The Valley in the Premier League, we'd be looking at increasing the capacity. We couldn't.
This is obvious.0 -
We lost the disabled parking and those using it were not informed until arrival on match day … it was disgusting treatment of these supportersAirman Brown said:
The board (the parent company to be clear) sold the land for the housing direct. It didn’t go through Bob Whitehand’s company as agreed by the shareholders. Those transactions never completed. Sparrows Lane was never transferred at all.YTS1978 said:
I posted that story earlier in the thread which included the selling of the training grounds and landsdowne mews. Airman said it wasnt true, but I think he was specifically replying to the training facilities, not the housing.matt88 said:
Fairly sure that the selling off of that land on Lansdowne Mews for housing means that we won’t be able to ever join the corners up now. Can’t remember which regime sold it off but sure Airman wrote about it before.TootingRedArmy said:We need Roland out, and I hope the owners will focus on this. Yes they have lease but hopefully looking at ways to buy him out, owning Valley and training ground with the team is only way forward in the long term. The Valley is a brilliant stadium, The Jimmy Seed stand gives us plenty of opportunity to expand and complete the stadium, joining the ES & WS stands. A Valley with 30-35K maximum is achievable without great expense. There is no point getting ahead of ourselves we need to establish our position in Championship for a few seasons and hopefully then push on.
Famously, (senior) staff were not told the land at Lansdowne Mews had been sold (under Waggott as chief exec) and got onto a dispute with the purchaser over its use for disabled parking.2 - Sponsored links:
-
Total shambles. Staff were arguing with the new owner because they had been told nothing. I doubt if Waggott even knew what it was used for.stonemuse said:
We lost the disabled parking and those using it were not informed until arrival on match day … it was disgusting treatment of these supportersAirman Brown said:
The board (the parent company to be clear) sold the land for the housing direct. It didn’t go through Bob Whitehand’s company as agreed by the shareholders. Those transactions never completed. Sparrows Lane was never transferred at all.YTS1978 said:
I posted that story earlier in the thread which included the selling of the training grounds and landsdowne mews. Airman said it wasnt true, but I think he was specifically replying to the training facilities, not the housing.matt88 said:
Fairly sure that the selling off of that land on Lansdowne Mews for housing means that we won’t be able to ever join the corners up now. Can’t remember which regime sold it off but sure Airman wrote about it before.TootingRedArmy said:We need Roland out, and I hope the owners will focus on this. Yes they have lease but hopefully looking at ways to buy him out, owning Valley and training ground with the team is only way forward in the long term. The Valley is a brilliant stadium, The Jimmy Seed stand gives us plenty of opportunity to expand and complete the stadium, joining the ES & WS stands. A Valley with 30-35K maximum is achievable without great expense. There is no point getting ahead of ourselves we need to establish our position in Championship for a few seasons and hopefully then push on.
Famously, (senior) staff were not told the land at Lansdowne Mews had been sold (under Waggott as chief exec) and got onto a dispute with the purchaser over its use for disabled parking.6 -
Yes, as always you are right!Airman Brown said:
Err you need to check your facts. The football company was sold by Roland to ESI in January 2020.Weegie Addick said:
Err the football company wasn’t Roland’s to sell in 2020? That was Sandgaard buying from ESI 1 despite the injunction by ESI 2?Airman Brown said:
This was agreed but never happened.YTS1978 said:
From BBC at the time:SoundAsa£ said:
Cannot open?YTS1978 said:A quick Google finds this...so i was kind of right. Seems like a lifetime ago!
https://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/mobile/football/teams/c/charlton_athletic/8001820.stmCharlton have sold their training ground to the club's directors in an attempt to inject money into the club.
The deal for £1.5m sees three sites used for training sold to chairman Richard Murray and honorary life president Sir Maurice Hatter.
Murray told the club's official website: "It might look like asset-stripping is going on, but that certainly isn't the case."
Charlton are bottom of the Championship, 12 points from safety.
The sale of the club's training ground, the Community Trust's Charlton Park rugby ground and the youth academy's Pippenhall sports ground was approved by Charlton plc shareholders on Wednesday.
Murray's Alliance Trust Pensions Limited and Sir Maurice's registered charity, The Maurice Hatter Foundation, made the purchases.
"The three key points are that the assets are in friendly hands, it's a 25-year lease, and if the club wants the facilities back, it can buy them back," said Murray.
"The three resolutions were all approved, so that was good. We explained the logic behind the decisions, and that Charlton won't suffer but will only benefit."
"The 25-year lease means the club has security of tenure and if, by any chance, the club came into some money which it wanted to invest back into the training ground, it's got an option to buy the training ground back."
"As most people will be aware, the directors have pumped a lot of money into the club and unfortunately, people like myself have just come to the end of their financial clout."
A residential site owned by the club near to the Valley, Lansdowne Mews, has also been sold as part of the deal to Bob Whitehand.
Definitely not asset stripping!
The reason the assets were separated from the football company in 1992 was to protect them if the football company went bust - nothing more, nothing less. Holdings was a wholly owned subsidiary of the PLC (it had the same owners as the football company at all times). The PLC became Baton 2010 and Roland sold the football company out of it in 2020.
This is also why the 15 year lease ran until a date in January 2035. You are confusing the publicity with the transaction.ESI purchase was announced in November 2019 which is what I was thinking of.When you said 2020, I thought of the transaction when Sandgaard bought the club in September. Or at least it was announced then that he did.5 -
The ownership of Valley and what may or may not be allowed to increase The Valley's capacity sounds a right buggers muddle! Somehow and at Some point the owners need to purchase The Valley & Training Ground back off that miserable old Belgium fool. We can't move forward as a club in the long term as tenants we need to own The Valley.
The more I read this thread the more complicated this whole mess seems. Charlton bad luck has been to be owned by largely terrible owners lacking ambition way back to the Gliksten family onwards. We could have been the "Arsenal of South London" if Gilkstein's had showed ambition and invested but we have rolled from one bad chancer to another. (Curbs Prem years aside)
As fans we are in hands of whoever owns us lets hope our American owners have enough $$$$$ to finally bring the team, Valley and training ground back together...heres hoping!2 -
I’ll get my tin hat ready but although I’d be very happy to see the football club and both The Valley and Sparrows re united in ownership I really don’t see the current state of affairs necessarily as a major obstacle to success on the pitch going forward. I accept that owning the real estate might provide some leverage in terms of dealing with banks should a loan be required but surely (?) that type of financial arrangement would be solely for capital investment. Not something I’d expect our owners to be looking at for the obvious reason of not owning the site and not needing at this point if ever of increasing the capacity. Sensible ownership, incremental improvements, good appointments with steady if unspectacular investment and not forgetting luck should imho see the football clubs on field achievements improve. I don’t believe the ownership of the real estate and footballing success are as closely linked as some.2
-
1 -
You should ask yourself why extending the lease back to its original length was a priority then. Investing in the football side, like investing in the ground, is compromised to a greater or lesser extent by the lack of certainty about the security of the status quo.ShootersHillGuru said:I’ll get my tin hat ready but although I’d be very happy to see the football club and both The Valley and Sparrows re united in ownership I really don’t see the current state of affairs necessarily as a major obstacle to success on the pitch going forward. I accept that owning the real estate might provide some leverage in terms of dealing with banks should a loan be required but surely (?) that type of financial arrangement would be solely for capital investment. Not something I’d expect our owners to be looking at for the obvious reason of not owning the site and not needing at this point if ever of increasing the capacity. Sensible ownership, incremental improvements, good appointments with steady if unspectacular investment and not forgetting luck should imho see the football clubs on field achievements improve. I don’t believe the ownership of the real estate and footballing success are as closely linked as some.I can’t speak to the motives of the owners, but they are bound to consider their investment in the light of its durability and risk. It is surprising they bought the club with a 11-12-year lease and it would be even more surprising if they were able to sell it on with a shorter one. It’s not about securing loans. It’s about the ability of a third party to wreck your business at will.7 -
Three weeks ago the museum give one of the owners a book to stress the importance of the Valley, this week the lease is extended. Coincidence? We think not!😵💫
16 -
As I’d expect all very good and valid points but isn’t sitting behind the split ownership the prospect that The Valley will only ever be a football stadium for the reasons we already know regarding other development possibilities. On that basis unless the owner wants to increase the terms of the lease to a point where it’s not affordable to remain I don’t see it as an issue because if the football club were forced out for economic reasons the owner gets nothing in terms of revenue and is forced to go down the road of seeking planning permission with all the obstacles that entails which could take years ? With no certainty of success.Airman Brown said:
You should ask yourself why extending the lease back to its original length was a priority then. Investing in the football side, like investing in the ground, is compromised to a greater or lesser extent by the lack of certainty about the security of the status quo.ShootersHillGuru said:I’ll get my tin hat ready but although I’d be very happy to see the football club and both The Valley and Sparrows re united in ownership I really don’t see the current state of affairs necessarily as a major obstacle to success on the pitch going forward. I accept that owning the real estate might provide some leverage in terms of dealing with banks should a loan be required but surely (?) that type of financial arrangement would be solely for capital investment. Not something I’d expect our owners to be looking at for the obvious reason of not owning the site and not needing at this point if ever of increasing the capacity. Sensible ownership, incremental improvements, good appointments with steady if unspectacular investment and not forgetting luck should imho see the football clubs on field achievements improve. I don’t believe the ownership of the real estate and footballing success are as closely linked as some.I can’t speak to the motives of the owners, but they are bound to consider their investment in the light of its durability and risk. It is surprising they bought the club with a 11-12-year lease and it would be even more surprising if they were able to sell it on with a shorter one. It’s not about securing loans. It’s about the ability of a third party to wreck your business at will.0 -
We would All love the Ground/training ground under current ownership but let’s give credit to where we are under the current owners.A lot better than we could have been.Quietly confident they are doing all the right things in the background and long May that continue3
-
The rent is 1% of his valuation (probably closer to 2.5% in the real world) and trivial in the bigger picture. I think he’s in a reasonable position to hold the club to ransom and the club’s only real card is to threaten or actually go somewhere else to share again. So RD / his successor potentially loses the rent and has to pay the business rates, but ultimately the club has to settle or give up, because there is no easy third option that I can see.ShootersHillGuru said:
As I’d expect all very good and valid points but isn’t sitting behind the split ownership the prospect that The Valley will only ever be a football stadium for the reasons we already know regarding other development possibilities. On that basis unless the owner wants to increase the terms of the lease to a point where it’s not affordable to remain I don’t see it as an issue because if the football club were forced out for economic reasons the owner gets nothing in terms of revenue and is forced to go down the road of seeking planning permission with all the obstacles that entails which could take years ? With no certainty of success.Airman Brown said:
You should ask yourself why extending the lease back to its original length was a priority then. Investing in the football side, like investing in the ground, is compromised to a greater or lesser extent by the lack of certainty about the security of the status quo.ShootersHillGuru said:I’ll get my tin hat ready but although I’d be very happy to see the football club and both The Valley and Sparrows re united in ownership I really don’t see the current state of affairs necessarily as a major obstacle to success on the pitch going forward. I accept that owning the real estate might provide some leverage in terms of dealing with banks should a loan be required but surely (?) that type of financial arrangement would be solely for capital investment. Not something I’d expect our owners to be looking at for the obvious reason of not owning the site and not needing at this point if ever of increasing the capacity. Sensible ownership, incremental improvements, good appointments with steady if unspectacular investment and not forgetting luck should imho see the football clubs on field achievements improve. I don’t believe the ownership of the real estate and footballing success are as closely linked as some.I can’t speak to the motives of the owners, but they are bound to consider their investment in the light of its durability and risk. It is surprising they bought the club with a 11-12-year lease and it would be even more surprising if they were able to sell it on with a shorter one. It’s not about securing loans. It’s about the ability of a third party to wreck your business at will.If there is no club and no early prospect of one capable of operating out of the stadium then consent would be granted for redevelopment in some form, if not by the council then over its head. The Duchatelet family could comfortably afford to sit out a lengthy hiatus.A possible scenario is that the council CPO the vacant site and sell it on to the club. This is what Thanet did with Dreamland to prevent the owner turning most of it into housing. But it’s not straightforward and the council certainly can’t use its CPO powers while it’s in use for football.6
