Council in talks to build affordable housing on Valley
Is this true?
How advanced?
How long have you known?
In my opinion the club is probably overstating the likelihood of this and the council's support for it in order to enhance the offer presented to a buyer, but it's their statement to the accountants and for them and the council to explain themselves.
I've been working with Mark Kleinman on the story for about ten days.
"Management reports that discussions over building a new stadium along with a residential development have been held with Greenwich Council, which has been positive towards the initial plans"
Some of you may recall that after the Brighton away game last year I let on that my wife's firm had been approached with a view to being part of a proposed take over. As @razil will confirm, I advised him at the time that the real reason that my wife's firm had been approached was to deal with the planning for a new stadium on the existing Macro's site. Shortly after the person acting as a middle man for our proposed new owner advised that the deal was dead and that my wife's firm wouldn't be required. They had been paid a 5 figure sum at that point.
I can tell you all that this middle man was back in my wife's offices last week and met with senior partners. No one in the company has been told what the meeting was about but the open "rumour" is that they are again being sounded out to deal with planning consent for a new ground and also to start discussions with Greenwich re: use of the Valley site were the club to vacate it.
Believe what you like, but I for one think this has legs and would not be at all surprised to hear that any take over is dependent on planning being obtained for a new stadium.
Some of you may recall that after the Brighton away game last year I let on that my wife's firm had been approached with a view to being part of a proposed take over. As @razil will confirm, I advised him at the time that the real reason that my wife's firm had been approached was to deal with the planning for a new stadium on the existing Macro's site. Shortly after the person acting as a middle man for our proposed new owner advised that the deal was dead and that my wife's firm wouldn't be required. They had been paid a 5 figure sum at that point.
I can tell you all that this middle man was back in my wife's offices last week and met with senior partners. No one in the company has been told what the meeting was about but the open "rumour" is that they are again being sounded out to deal with planning consent for a new ground and also to start discussions with Greenwich re: use of the Valley site were the club to vacate it.
Believe what you like, but I for one think this has legs and would not be at all surprised to hear that any take over is dependent on planning being obtained for a new stadium.
I think it has legs too. I think it's always had legs. Might just be TJ's and MS's get out of jail card too.
And support by the club for AVC is just to throw us off the scent, those chaps really are clever. And they'd have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those pesky kids.
It is interesting to know that the losses for last season were the same as in League 1 at £7M - as predicted by the Trust back in March. I am therefore confused why the "funding requirements for Charlton's operations rose from £5.8m in 2011/12 to an estimate £8.1m last year" - an increase of £2.3M. This cannot be because of the reason stated, i.e. higher playing costs since there are higher tv revenues to match them.
Perhaps people will sign up to ACV to show their support for knowing more about The Valley and the finances?
We know that in the development plan, The Royal Borough of Greenwich have a large stadia designated in the north Greenwich peninsular not far from the O2. This and Airman's scoop have a link and should not necessarily be dismissed?
Why would we want to move stadiums? How would we even afford to build one?
Thought it was just me - why sell one lot of land to buy some that's presumably about the same cost as it's just round the corner, meanwhile incurring a hell of a lot of building costs?
The Valley is our home, end of. The reception that Mike Norris & Co once got would be a teddy bears picnic compared to the reception this lot would get if they tried this on.
Why would we want to move stadiums? How would we even afford to build one?
Thought it was just me - why sell one lot of land to buy some that's presumably about the same cost as it's just round the corner, meanwhile incurring a hell of a lot of building costs?
That depends who is paying for the new stadium and who is making money from developing the old one. The ownership of The Valley and the club is currently in the same hands, Baton 2010 Ltd.
Unless you believe there is a vast untapped commercial potential in CAFC, then the only obvious reason to build a new stadium would be because you could generate income from other things on another site with Charlton as an anchor tenant and the owners of the existing stadium could make money from The Valley.
Either way, my bet is there is no intention for CAFC to own or build any new stadium and we would end up with a club that has no bricks and mortar assets, just like 1985. In any event, it has always been my view that the peninsula is the wrong location, because the public transport goes to the wrong places.
In any event, it has always been my view that the peninsula is the wrong location, because the public transport goes to the wrong places.
That can be easily fixed.
The lesson of the Millennium stadium was that the lack of transport infrastructure discouraged people - and that was taken on board when the Olympic stadium was built.
Who grants the AVC ? Surely if there is legs in it , the AVC application will be turned down due to the borough wanting the site
RBG are empowered to maintain the list of community assets in the borough, it is to them that we've applied for ACV status. No application to protect a professional football teams stadium has been turned down so far, from Nuneaton Borough to Manchester United they've all been accepted, would be very odd if RBG turned us down.
Airman has shown that a bit of thought, some decent digging and a friendly leak or two can still lead to decent journalism. Buy a copy. The article doesn't say that we are packing up and moving off but it does say that the possibility is there. It also puts plenty of extra detail on our financial set-up.
I don't recall anything about The Valley being used as a location for affordable housing. VOTV says that there are doubts within Greenwich that the local road infrastructure is up to the job. I would also suggest that they might not want to take on the extra bills that come with large-scale social housing developments (sadly, a higher proportion of social housing residents are likely to use other Council services at a cost to the council's budget). Over the river, Newham have decided that they do not want to be seen as a borough that will help fill the need for social housing whilst boroughs like Hammersmith and Fulham actively reduce their own social housing stocks.
Anyway, spend £2 on the Voice. The articles on Les Reed and Colin Powell are worth the money alone.
Great Voice of the Valley. A lot more informative than the Club programme. Great to see Matt Wright joining the production of the Voice.
I did find it gob smackingly embarrassing that MS makes strong statement that the club is not for sale at £40 million in the club programme. This is flatly contradicted by the acccountant's report on the sale of the club on Sky news an in Voice of the Valley. How bright is that ? Did MS not think that this would become common knowledge ?
It does not help me trust MS statements, when what he clearly states in the program is clearly different to what is going on.
I also worry about competence, when they are letting players contracts run down to nothing undermining assets. They will potentially leave us with core of the team fighting a relegation battle (on today's showing) who don't have a confirmed future at the club, including Chris Powell. This may actively undermine the spirit and togetherness of the team and contribute to the relegation.
It is not a surprise that MS and TJ want to get their hands on the Valley. They have always wanted to make money, and it is not evident to me that whether money released by the sale of the Valley will go to make a stronger club or straight into their pockets to replace the money that have spent.
In any case, unless any new stadium is next to the tube, I don't see what travel advantages having a club in or around the Makro site would bring above the present situation at the Valley.
The normal reasons for building a new ground are a) the existing ground is too small (e.g. Arsenal) b) it's easier to build a new ground, rather than rebuilding the existing one (e.g. Millwall) c) moving from a lucrative site (maybe wanted by Tesco's) to a cheaper site release moneys to build the new stadium or pay off club debts (e.g. Yeovil)
I'm not sure what the benefit of moving to the peninsula would be, as The Valley's location is unlikely to be worth that much more than the peninsula location, and we don't need a larger ground
"Contrary to reports in the press, I have not told anyone that he club is for sale for £40million" - Michael Slater in today's programme.
Not the same thing as saying outright that the club is not for sale, or that something in the region of £40million wouldn't enable you to buy it, is it?
Anyone know which firm of accountants produced the report?
Comments
I've been working with Mark Kleinman on the story for about ten days.
Sounds like nothing to me. Still, I suppose the headlines on the boxes sold a few extra copies, which is the name of the game.
I can tell you all that this middle man was back in my wife's offices last week and met with senior partners. No one in the company has been told what the meeting was about but the open "rumour" is that they are again being sounded out to deal with planning consent for a new ground and also to start discussions with Greenwich re: use of the Valley site were the club to vacate it.
Believe what you like, but I for one think this has legs and would not be at all surprised to hear that any take over is dependent on planning being obtained for a new stadium.
Perhaps people will sign up to ACV to show their support for knowing more about The Valley and the finances?
well done Rick.
Unless you believe there is a vast untapped commercial potential in CAFC, then the only obvious reason to build a new stadium would be because you could generate income from other things on another site with Charlton as an anchor tenant and the owners of the existing stadium could make money from The Valley.
Either way, my bet is there is no intention for CAFC to own or build any new stadium and we would end up with a club that has no bricks and mortar assets, just like 1985. In any event, it has always been my view that the peninsula is the wrong location, because the public transport goes to the wrong places.
That can be easily fixed.
The lesson of the Millennium stadium was that the lack of transport infrastructure discouraged people - and that was taken on board when the Olympic stadium was built.
I don't recall anything about The Valley being used as a location for affordable housing. VOTV says that there are doubts within Greenwich that the local road infrastructure is up to the job. I would also suggest that they might not want to take on the extra bills that come with large-scale social housing developments (sadly, a higher proportion of social housing residents are likely to use other Council services at a cost to the council's budget). Over the river, Newham have decided that they do not want to be seen as a borough that will help fill the need for social housing whilst boroughs like Hammersmith and Fulham actively reduce their own social housing stocks.
Anyway, spend £2 on the Voice. The articles on Les Reed and Colin Powell are worth the money alone.
I did find it gob smackingly embarrassing that MS makes strong statement that the club is not for sale at £40 million in the club programme. This is flatly contradicted by the acccountant's report on the sale of the club on Sky news an in Voice of the Valley. How bright is that ? Did MS not think that this would become common knowledge ?
It does not help me trust MS statements, when what he clearly states in the program is clearly different to what is going on.
I also worry about competence, when they are letting players contracts run down to nothing undermining assets. They will potentially leave us with core of the team fighting a relegation battle (on today's showing) who don't have a confirmed future at the club, including Chris Powell. This may actively undermine the spirit and togetherness of the team and contribute to the relegation.
It is not a surprise that MS and TJ want to get their hands on the Valley. They have always wanted to make money, and it is not evident to me that whether money released by the sale of the Valley will go to make a stronger club or straight into their pockets to replace the money that have spent.
In any case, unless any new stadium is next to the tube, I don't see what travel advantages having a club in or around the Makro site would bring above the present situation at the Valley.
a) the existing ground is too small (e.g. Arsenal)
b) it's easier to build a new ground, rather than rebuilding the existing one (e.g. Millwall)
c) moving from a lucrative site (maybe wanted by Tesco's) to a cheaper site release moneys to build the new stadium or pay off club debts (e.g. Yeovil)
I'm not sure what the benefit of moving to the peninsula would be, as The Valley's location is unlikely to be worth that much more than the peninsula location, and we don't need a larger ground
Not the same thing as saying outright that the club is not for sale, or that something in the region of £40million wouldn't enable you to buy it, is it?
Anyone know which firm of accountants produced the report?