I do not see need for the "banter" over this issue as ultimately we all want what is best for the club . I agree with NLA there is a need for a reality check - though not on quite the same basis. I was under the impression a little over 18 months ago the club, not for the first time, was looking down the barrel of administration.
That we are not is due to the "largesse" of an unknown number of investors and those former board members who took substantial losses on their previous funding of the club. A notable proportion of their debt however remains on our collective corporate balance sheet.
The investment made within the past 12 months was crucial because the club was simply not financially viable as a League 1 club. The increased revenue at a Championship level simply eases the burden on the pockets of the investors (something we should all remember as some fans seek excessive and in some cases unrealistic churn within the playing squad).
Against this background I am not sure of the problem here. I am as fond of the Valley as anyone but if the club has ambitions to achieve 40,000 crowds as part of its long term ability to finance a Premier League team and it certainly did (ergo the specific group tasked with identifying strategies to stimulate/ promote such growth) then having a stadium to fit them in is a rather salient point.
Our attachment to those memories forged at the Valley are important to us but ultimately they are just that - memories and I am not sure many of us would consider them more important that the long term prosperity/ survival of the club.
The financial benefits of operating within an "entertainment arena" should be significant - just how many "extra curricular" activities are the club allowed to offset the costs of maintaining the Valley for circa 25 events a year.
In terms of demand as a PL club I would have thought games against Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man C, Man U, Tottenham, West Ham, all had the potential for 40,000 crowds. Throw in a couple of "specials" from games against Everton, Newcastle, Villa and Sunderland and you have the opportunity for maximum crowds in 50% of your home league games.
In terms of growth the normal challenge is how to fund any stadium development in a timely manner whilst at the same time investing in the likely personnel to secure the playing status to stimulate the demand to cover the development cost. So if someone proposes the building of an appropriately sized stadium on your door step (or 3 miles up the road ) you would be plain daft not to investigate those proposals to identify how they do and do not fit with your ambitions and any challenges that may impact the long term viability of your club/client base.
The emotional and crucially the logistical challenges identified are valid but would equally crucially present a challenge to not only Charlton’s participation in the process but to any comparable prospective participant.
Anyone proposing to build such a stadium without full evaluating the affordable ease of access to and departure from the stadium (remember the developers of the O2 came very late to the game ) would probably need their "bumps" feelings. In this scenario get that piece wrong and you could negatively impact the complete peninisula development). It should be remembered the parties to the proposed development are not exactly novices.
You can view the outline peninsular proposals as an opportunity or a threat but as a strong community player I would have thought the club and the community trust has sought and will continue to seek every opportunity to evaluate how any peninsular development proposals can assist the club to better serve its aims, its local community and its client base.
I think both the rush to "progress" (as SA says a loaded word) regardless of valid concerns AND the outright rejection of any move are both premature.
Firstly we are comparing a current reality with a very very vague future possibility. There are no concreye designs that we know of.
Second there is no pressing need for change. If there were, views might, IMHO, change. For Arsenal and Man City the need for change was clear and present even if many fans still wished to stick with their old grounds.
Right now is too early. If your partner of 6 months suggested selling the nice two bed flat you were living in for a 6 bed house because of plans to have kids/inlaws/pets some unspecified time in the future you'd think they were too far ahead of themselves and refuse to budge.
A few years later with one kid and another on the way it all seems a lot more reasonable to live the flat with the nice pub and curry house around the corner for that new, little bit souless estate which does have good schools and play-areas.
I have, and i'm sure everyone else on here, has been 'insulted' much worse than that - with a few choicer words than those mentioned too !! I certainly am every day.!
With regard to selling boxes, we would not struggle to sell them. Every box has been sold for next season, including one which is being built this year.
The problem with football, is that the income levels (gates, tv, corporate, commercial) can vary so much from season to season, depending on what league you are in, and we are one of a number of clubs with the potential for getting into the PL, but who realistically won't stay there forever.
If we could guarantee staying in the PL for 10 seasons, then extra capacity, boxes etc would be a no brainer.
If we knew we had little chance of getting into the PL, or would be a one season wonder, then we wouldn't bother even thinking about expansion.
Instead we are one of 20ish clubs who can realistically expect promotion to the PL at some time, to which you can add 10ish clubs currently in the PL who can expect relegation at some time. It's most unlikely we'll break out of this group. Thus it's likely we'll go up at some point, and that we'll go back down as well. Ther 40,000 capacity would make serious money with the big PL games, but be a financial millstone outside of the PL, and terrible for the atmosphere. An interesting conundrum...
Most football fans are nostalgic about their ground. Many of us have very special memories. For me it was sitting in the old west stand with my dad when I was a kid watching the likes of Keith Peacock and Derek Hales and then in the 80's watching from north stand and the big old east terrace. Of course that was all taken away from us and the joy of going home again was immeasurable. But lovely stadium though the Valley is with lots of great (and a few not so great!) memories the location in a residentail area doesn't allow for much in the way of commercial expansion. If the club were able to secure a new and local stadium with the scope to have retail units and top of the range facilities including tube access and plenty of parking with a river side location then we'd become one of the best investment opportunities in football. Who's to say with the right investment we couldn't become one of the biggest clubs in the country? I don't think that could be achievable at the Valley. But is that what we want?
Who's to say with the right investment we couldn't become one of the biggest clubs in the country? I don't think that could be achievable at the Valley. But is that what we want?
The thing is, all clubs aspire to this and only a handful can achieve it. Most of those that try end up in a mess when they don't make it.
When you think that clubs need hundreds of millions of pounds to just stay in the Premier League these days, how much would it, really, cost to compete with the big clubs?
If we invest enough to try what happens if we fail?
Who's to say with the right investment we couldn't become one of the biggest clubs in the country? I don't think that could be achievable at the Valley. But is that what we want?
The thing is, all clubs aspire to this and only a handful can achieve it. Most of those that try end up in a mess when they don't make it.
When you think that clubs need hundreds of millions of pounds to just stay in the Premier League these days, how much would it, really, cost to compete with the big clubs?
If we invest enough to try what happens if we fail?
Ah, some reasoned debate i notice. Thank you Grapevine (welcome back,- i didnt know you before, but still, welcome back!), and Marto. And thanks to everyone else for their kind comments.
This,that and the other. (i've got no idea, but hey,ho)
I think a full Valley would be much more beneficial than a half-empty superdome.
Look at what's happened to teams like Coventry.
With there being so many soulless new bowl grounds, the Valley's history and character is an asset that money can't buy.
Walking down Floyd Road, past Sam's shop, sighting the remnants of the old East terrace... you can't buy magic like that, and you certainly can't make it somewhere else.
Nothing to stop the club moving forward while staying at the Valley. Did it before.
personally rather have a couple of thousand locked out of a 32k capacity Valley, then seeing 25k rattling round in 40k seater up by the O2 when we play Wigan in 5 years time
personally rather have a couple of thousand locked out of a 32k capacity Valley, then seeing 25k rattling round in 40k seater up by the O2 when we play Wigan in 5 years time
I just don't think we would sell 40k, and the capital investment in the Valley to get to that size is too much, think it's pushing £20m to do the East Stand, but with a little work, early 30's is achieveable by filling the corners in, and thats where the club is going to be for the foreseeable future. What the club probably needs to invest in, is better cororpate facilities either in the West or in the corners.
If that means 2 or 3k are locked out for Man U or Arsenal, then so be it.
We won't be selling 40K for a good few years yet. Let's buy a new stadium when we've been in the prem for a bit and challenging for Europe. The only other way we could do this is if Palace folded and their orphans began to drift our way.
And who's gonna move to Greenwich peninsula that would likely threaten our catchment area? Spam? Cos palace and Millwall cant compete with our turnout even though they've been a league higher for three years, so they arent gonna want it.
Personally wouldn't want to leave the Valley just yet and especially if it was for one of the identikit stadiums using the same blueprints of the Riverside, stadium of light, Madejski etc. Horrible places.
However, the one thing I notice is that everyone keeps talking about empty seats, is it not possible that even moving to a new stadium and having it 3/4 or even half full that it could potentially increase revenues compared to what we have seen in the past, its bad enough trying to get refreshments at half time even in league 1, but a new stadium with bigger concourses, more service points could mean an increased number of people being served therefore increasing revenues. Not to mention hospitality etc.
And if this stadium could be used as has been suggested for concerts in the summer surely the club gets a cut of that. With all the financial fair play rules coming in club's will have to get smarter in terms of how they are run especially on the business side, if the only way is to progress is to move then reluctantly I would agree.
Some good comments, Bing has summed my view up best, there is one extra thing I want to add.
There is a difference between nostalgia and heritage, and heritage is a valuable commercial attribute. For most of us, going to the Valley has an extra value to it because of our recent history. We are there because we as fans took unprecedented action in the period 1988-92 to get the Valley back. This thought sustains a lot of people through the darkest hours like when we have lost 4-2 at home to Swindon. It is probably a reason why we get higher gates than Palace and Millwall do, a division higher. The Valley is part of the club that we are, it is part of the Charlton brand - a brand which the owners showed they understood when they appointed Chris Powell and restored our pride, our faith in what we are as a club, as a tribe. The Valley is also clearly appreciated by many many away fans who frequently speak of it as a 'proper' stadium. I cannot think of any other club where the recent history of the ground is so tied up with the current perception of the brand, both to Charlton fans and the wider public.
You throw away such a powerful brand symbol at your peril.
Look for example at the furore in Newcastle over the renaming of SJP. And that's just a name change.
There will be an equal furore if the porn merchants expect West Ham fans to travel south of the river to home games. So by all means keep a watching brief on plans there but beyond that, forget it. The Valley can be easily expanded to 32,000, and frankly I think that's enough for the foreseeable future. So some people think parking is a pain. Go by train. How many other grounds have a regular rail station right by the ground? You do not have to move stadia to improve the catering. And you can actually market The Valley to lost supporters as one of the few remaining examples of a "proper" stadium experience.
Portsmouth Addick, the attachment to the Valley is far from Luddism and anti-commercialism.
To stay with the Valley and market The Valley as part of the experience when you buy your ticket, is a very sound marketing strategy, because it is in tune with the emotional perceptions of current and lapsed customers.
The business world is full of failed businesses whose owners didnt listen to their customers. Such as the idiots who took us to Selhurst Park in 1985.
Here's thinking outside the box for you, how about we knock down the Valley, turn it into a 14 floor car park and run our own monorail from the car park to our new stadium every 47 seconds?
Comments
That we are not is due to the "largesse" of an unknown number of investors and those former board members who took substantial losses on their previous funding of the club. A notable proportion of their debt however remains on our collective corporate balance sheet.
The investment made within the past 12 months was crucial because the club was simply not financially viable as a League 1 club. The increased revenue at a Championship level simply eases the burden on the pockets of the investors (something we should all remember as some fans seek excessive and in some cases unrealistic churn within the playing squad).
Against this background I am not sure of the problem here. I am as fond of the Valley as anyone but if the club has ambitions to achieve 40,000 crowds as part of its long term ability to finance a Premier League team and it certainly did (ergo the specific group tasked with identifying strategies to stimulate/ promote such growth) then having a stadium to fit them in is a rather salient point.
Our attachment to those memories forged at the Valley are important to us but ultimately they are just that - memories and I am not sure many of us would consider them more important that the long term prosperity/ survival of the club.
The financial benefits of operating within an "entertainment arena" should be significant - just how many "extra curricular" activities are the club allowed to offset the costs of maintaining the Valley for circa 25 events a year.
In terms of demand as a PL club I would have thought games against Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man C, Man U, Tottenham, West Ham, all had the potential for 40,000 crowds. Throw in a couple of "specials" from games against Everton, Newcastle, Villa and Sunderland and you have the opportunity for maximum crowds in 50% of your home league games.
In terms of growth the normal challenge is how to fund any stadium development in a timely manner whilst at the same time investing in the likely personnel to secure the playing status to stimulate the demand to cover the development cost. So if someone proposes the building of an appropriately sized stadium on your door step (or 3 miles up the road ) you would be plain daft not to investigate those proposals to identify how they do and do not fit with your ambitions and any challenges that may impact the long term viability of your club/client base.
The emotional and crucially the logistical challenges identified are valid but would equally crucially present a challenge to not only Charlton’s participation in the process but to any comparable prospective participant.
Anyone proposing to build such a stadium without full evaluating the affordable ease of access to and departure from the stadium (remember the developers of the O2 came very late to the game ) would probably need their "bumps" feelings. In this scenario get that piece wrong and you could negatively impact the complete peninisula development). It should be remembered the parties to the proposed development are not exactly novices.
You can view the outline peninsular proposals as an opportunity or a threat but as a strong community player I would have thought the club and the community trust has sought and will continue to seek every opportunity to evaluate how any peninsular development proposals can assist the club to better serve its aims, its local community and its client base.
Firstly we are comparing a current reality with a very very vague future possibility. There are no concreye designs that we know of.
Second there is no pressing need for change. If there were, views might, IMHO, change. For Arsenal and Man City the need for change was clear and present even if many fans still wished to stick with their old grounds.
Right now is too early. If your partner of 6 months suggested selling the nice two bed flat you were living in for a 6 bed house because of plans to have kids/inlaws/pets some unspecified time in the future you'd think they were too far ahead of themselves and refuse to budge.
A few years later with one kid and another on the way it all seems a lot more reasonable to live the flat with the nice pub and curry house around the corner for that new, little bit souless estate which does have good schools and play-areas.
If we could guarantee staying in the PL for 10 seasons, then extra capacity, boxes etc would be a no brainer.
If we knew we had little chance of getting into the PL, or would be a one season wonder, then we wouldn't bother even thinking about expansion.
Instead we are one of 20ish clubs who can realistically expect promotion to the PL at some time, to which you can add 10ish clubs currently in the PL who can expect relegation at some time. It's most unlikely we'll break out of this group. Thus it's likely we'll go up at some point, and that we'll go back down as well. Ther 40,000 capacity would make serious money with the big PL games, but be a financial millstone outside of the PL, and terrible for the atmosphere. An interesting conundrum...
When you think that clubs need hundreds of millions of pounds to just stay in the Premier League these days, how much would it, really, cost to compete with the big clubs?
If we invest enough to try what happens if we fail?
Thank you Grapevine (welcome back,- i didnt know you before, but still, welcome back!), and Marto.
And thanks to everyone else for their kind comments.
This,that and the other. (i've got no idea, but hey,ho)
Look at what's happened to teams like Coventry.
With there being so many soulless new bowl grounds, the Valley's history and character is an asset that money can't buy.
Walking down Floyd Road, past Sam's shop, sighting the remnants of the old East terrace... you can't buy magic like that, and you certainly can't make it somewhere else.
Nothing to stop the club moving forward while staying at the Valley. Did it before.
If that means 2 or 3k are locked out for Man U or Arsenal, then so be it.
And who's gonna move to Greenwich peninsula that would likely threaten our catchment area? Spam? Cos palace and Millwall cant compete with our turnout even though they've been a league higher for three years, so they arent gonna want it.
However, the one thing I notice is that everyone keeps talking about empty seats, is it not possible that even moving to a new stadium and having it 3/4 or even half full that it could potentially increase revenues compared to what we have seen in the past, its bad enough trying to get refreshments at half time even in league 1, but a new stadium with bigger concourses, more service points could mean an increased number of people being served therefore increasing revenues. Not to mention hospitality etc.
And if this stadium could be used as has been suggested for concerts in the summer surely the club gets a cut of that. With all the financial fair play rules coming in club's will have to get smarter in terms of how they are run especially on the business side, if the only way is to progress is to move then reluctantly I would agree.
There is a difference between nostalgia and heritage, and heritage is a valuable commercial attribute. For most of us, going to the Valley has an extra value to it because of our recent history. We are there because we as fans took unprecedented action in the period 1988-92 to get the Valley back. This thought sustains a lot of people through the darkest hours like when we have lost 4-2 at home to Swindon. It is probably a reason why we get higher gates than Palace and Millwall do, a division higher. The Valley is part of the club that we are, it is part of the Charlton brand - a brand which the owners showed they understood when they appointed Chris Powell and restored our pride, our faith in what we are as a club, as a tribe. The Valley is also clearly appreciated by many many away fans who frequently speak of it as a 'proper' stadium. I cannot think of any other club where the recent history of the ground is so tied up with the current perception of the brand, both to Charlton fans and the wider public.
You throw away such a powerful brand symbol at your peril.
Look for example at the furore in Newcastle over the renaming of SJP. And that's just a name change.
There will be an equal furore if the porn merchants expect West Ham fans to travel south of the river to home games. So by all means keep a watching brief on plans there but beyond that, forget it. The Valley can be easily expanded to 32,000, and frankly I think that's enough for the foreseeable future. So some people think parking is a pain. Go by train. How many other grounds have a regular rail station right by the ground? You do not have to move stadia to improve the catering. And you can actually market The Valley to lost supporters as one of the few remaining examples of a "proper" stadium experience.
Portsmouth Addick, the attachment to the Valley is far from Luddism and anti-commercialism.
To stay with the Valley and market The Valley as part of the experience when you buy your ticket, is a very sound marketing strategy, because it is in tune with the emotional perceptions of current and lapsed customers.
The business world is full of failed businesses whose owners didnt listen to their customers. Such as the idiots who took us to Selhurst Park in 1985.