Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Options

Voice of The Valley 107 - out August 10th, 2013

13567

Comments

  • Options

    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

    Good post. Good summary. The Valley is an emotional issue, but we need to keep banging away at the rational question you pose.

  • Options
    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)

    There is also the route taken by Coventry and Swansea - a privately owned consortium (perhaps with some local authority support) build a new stadium and bring in a football club as a tenant and then host gigs, rugby matches etc to pay the rent.
  • Options

    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)

    There is also the route taken by Coventry and Swansea - a privately owned consortium (perhaps with some local authority support) build a new stadium and bring in a football club as a tenant and then host gigs, rugby matches etc to pay the rent.

    Just what the peninsula needs, a venue for bands to play in.
    ;-)

  • Options
    The sums don't add up for having a stadium for outside gigs in Greenwich, it's 10 years too late
  • Options
    The difference between Coventry and Swansea, and Charlton is that their old grounds were crap. The Valley is a Premier League ground.
  • Options
    Off_it said:

    "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?

    Well of course the club is for sale, it is no secret the current owners are deep in the sticky smelly brown stuff financially speaking. How that situation will be resolved is much more worrying to me! It's nothing personal against any of the VotV gang if I were to say I truly and completely hope they are wrong on this one, as unlikely as that seems.
  • Options
    So Slater hasn't personally told anyone - but I imagine plenty of others have!
  • Options
    WSS said:

    Loved the Steve Brown interview as well, really didn't like Curbs did he?!

    Stevie Brown wont let you down

  • Options
    Interesting that it says the the Club, owners, were willing to sell one of better players for 2-3m and replace them/bolster the squad with free transfers. That is all well and good, and sensible in my opinion, except that now with the contract situation the whole squad if sold wouldn't raise 2m. The whole report was written to show the Club in good light but when that includes future transfer payments including 700k for McGinty which we are never going to see now it shows what a parlose state our finances are in. Piss up and brewery spring to mind.
  • Options
    edited August 2013
    Who are the McGinty Brothers?

    The fourth biggest average championship attendance last season? Home only (9th highest) or home and away?


    In the report was it?
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    Like the Driscoll brothers but a bit less intimidating
  • Options
    shirty5 said:

    Who are the McGinty Brothers?

    Matt and Jim. Couple of lovely fellas.
  • Options

    Interesting that it says the the Club, owners, were willing to sell one of better players for 2-3m and replace them/bolster the squad with free transfers. That is all well and good, and sensible in my opinion, except that now with the contract situation the whole squad if sold wouldn't raise 2m. The whole report was written to show the Club in good light but when that includes future transfer payments including 700k for McGinty which we are never going to see now it shows what a parlose state our finances are in. Piss up and brewery spring to mind.

    The report has £320k from the second McGinty brother. I'm told he exists and did got to United with Sean, but I'd never even heard of him.
  • Options
    Rothko said:

    The sums don't add up for having a stadium for outside gigs in Greenwich, it's 10 years too late

    Vanity project for the Royal Borough? I did try to put these matters to Cllr Roberts when he marched past this afternoon but I'm afraid there isn't much brotherly love lost there...
  • Options
    Just ordered a copy online.

    Airman, any prospect of some form of subscription becoming available before the next edition? If so, count me in.
  • Options
    I've a feeling that 'Rick Monthly' is about to discover that part-time work can be financially lucrative :-)
  • Options
    AB, according to the CAFC official site Richard Wood signed a 1 year deal, not two, so just Church, Harriott and Wilson not out of contract next summer.
  • Options

    AB, according to the CAFC official site Richard Wood signed a 1 year deal, not two, so just Church, Harriott and Wilson not out of contract next summer.

    Fair point.

  • Options
    Great bit of journalism Rick, s**t awful news. Did you manage to rustle up a millionaire or two at the same time or are you leaving the easy bit for us to do?
  • Options
    se9addick said:

    sammy391 said:

    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.
    They will just approve it because it won't make any difference.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    edited August 2013

    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

    Good post. Good summary. The Valley is an emotional issue, but we need to keep banging away at the rational question you pose.

    Well I'm not sure what the disposal value would be of the Valley site, redeveloped or otherwise, but the above assumes that the capital burden would be with the club.

    What if the Council built the stadium - it's in the borough plan after all - and we entered into a long term lease? That would put money into the owners' pockets, fulfil at least one element of the borough plan (probably more) and provide new revenue streams for the Council, and the ACV wouldn't matter a jot.

    What if the stadium was built privately by a third party?

    I wrote a long time ago on here that I felt the Valley was at risk because I couldn't see another way these guys could make money from the club. Reading the Voice today I felt a knot in my stomach, and anger that the Council once again are implicated. Let's hope it's just the owners building their part.
  • Options
    In a time when we are meant to be protecting the environment, how stupid would it be to knock down a perfectly good and fit for purpose stadium while building a new one along the road? But that's property developers and politicians for you...a dangerous combination.
  • Options
    The council would love to get us away from The Valley. It's a headache that moving to the Penninsula would get rid of.

    Apparently.
  • Options
    Compared to 1989, the last time we took on Greenwich Council and won, we have two tools at our disposal that can help us

    1. The Internet

    2. The Freedom of Information Law

    Lets use them...

  • Options

    Compared to 1989, the last time we took on Greenwich Council and won, we have two tools at our disposal that can help us

    1. The Internet

    2. The Freedom of Information Law

    Lets use them...

    You "build" it, PA ...we'll come !

  • Options

    The council would love to get us away from The Valley. It's a headache that moving to the Penninsula would get rid of.

    Apparently.

    What is the nature of their headache?

  • Options
    It says on the Voice of The Valley site that £3.78 includes postage to Europe but Paypal adds on another £1.50
  • Options
    edited August 2013

    It says on the Voice of The Valley site that £3.78 includes postage to Europe but Paypal adds on another £1.50

    Paypal is a sod to set up with non-UK postage, hence you have to bodge it to get the right amount. I'll have a look at it.

    The way it should work is that you add the UK postage charge to the quoted figure to get to the right total amount.
  • Options
    Airman: 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.

    Do you have the numbers on this please as this is critical to understanding what it takes for the club to stay in the game... are there loans being repaid or a rise in player registrations / drop in fees in... or perhaps a typo?

  • Options
    It's not a typo, it's their own figure. I suspect it has to do with the way the club was starved of money last summer, but I'd have to dig deeper into the numbers to give you an answer.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!