Thanks! Depending upon what the docs are, there should be a funding statement which shows how you get from operating losses to net funding ... which in turn will tie to the difference in creditors on the balance sheet (probably increase in loans from the parent company)
I wouldn't make any assumptions like "starved of money" or "due to player increases" as the table will show precisely why the funding is not the same as the previous season nor the losses.
The Trust prediction last March was that funding would be the same as the losses at £7M because depreciation on The Valley (not cash) at £1M is virtually the same as the bank loan repayment on the North Upper (not profit and loss) AND the income streams from player payments from other teams (Liverpool, Newcastle, Man U and Arsenal) are the same as new registrations.
I think we saw today that even if the numbers look like they are standing still albeit at £7M losses every year, what matters is what happens on the pitch. The first team needs luck, good management and the injection of talent to keep climbing... the first two years were the easy bit!
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.
So in some way the council are going to build social housing on a site that has contamination on it?. It not only is going to do that but build a new stadia with the infastructure, or seek private investment. But apparently ACV does not make a jot?. So the fans have no reason to be notified? The management/board and council just decide these things and the fans go along with it?. No thanks, not that I think the council has a pot to piss in, let alone support an expensive scheme like this with all the add on's that will become part of the final bill. Based on the attendance yesterday why would they need to?
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.
So in some way the council are going to build social housing on a site that has contamination on it?. It not only is going to do that but build a new stadia with the infastructure, or seek private investment. But apparently ACV does not make a jot?. So the fans have no reason to be notified? The management/board and council just decide these things and the fans go along with it?. No thanks, not that I think the council has a pot to piss in, let alone support an expensive scheme like this with all the add on's that will become part of the final bill. Based on the attendance yesterday why would they need to?
Who said a new stadium had to be bigger than 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
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.
So in some way the council are going to build social housing on a site that has contamination on it?. It not only is going to do that but build a new stadia with the infastructure, or seek private investment. But apparently ACV does not make a jot?. So the fans have no reason to be notified? The management/board and council just decide these things and the fans go along with it?. No thanks, not that I think the council has a pot to piss in, let alone support an expensive scheme like this with all the add on's that will become part of the final bill. Based on the attendance yesterday why would they need to?
Who said a new stadium had to be bigger than The Valley?
Then why move? Not that I will, even if it was free to watch CAFC. Why would you build a smaller stadium? it is all the infastructure and possible additional revenue that a venue could possibly raise i.e concerts that a consortium would be interested in a football stadia with 20 games a year?. How on earth is that financially viable.? We tried ground sharing, even hosting the bronco's was an abject failure. What happens if we get relegated?. Nice shiny new stadia, a park and ride scheme?. There may also be an objection from other clubs, not too keen on this aka: Westham who have a certain stadia to fill, not too far away, and they play apparently prem football.......
Because the owners want their money back. They have discovered that the Club we love is located in one of the more round own parts of London. No private investor is clamouring
The peninsular lot will need entertainment. Councils have to fulfill affordable housing requirements. But why are we assuming that a new stadium will be for football only? Stig's Rikileaks is first class. T- shirt please.
- lower construction costs; - greater focus on building impressive hospitality areas (which would be easier to sell in that location) rather than more cheap seats; - real pricing power if/when demand exists to fill it ie. in Premiership, - better atmosphere.
If we got a stadium like the AMEX with everything that goes with it it would be hard to say no from a business point of view. I'd struggle to accept from an emotional one though.
Thanks! Depending upon what the docs are, there should be a funding statement which shows how you get from operating losses to net funding ... which in turn will tie to the difference in creditors on the balance sheet (probably increase in loans from the parent company)
I wouldn't make any assumptions like "starved of money" or "due to player increases" as the table will show precisely why the funding is not the same as the previous season nor the losses.
The Trust prediction last March was that funding would be the same as the losses at £7M because depreciation on The Valley (not cash) at £1M is virtually the same as the bank loan repayment on the North Upper (not profit and loss) AND the income streams from player payments from other teams (Liverpool, Newcastle, Man U and Arsenal) are the same as new registrations.
I think we saw today that even if the numbers look like they are standing still albeit at £7M losses every year, what matters is what happens on the pitch. The first team needs luck, good management and the injection of talent to keep climbing... the first two years were the easy bit!
2012 (actual) to 2013 (budget) - all £000 Net cash from operating activities (4,763) to (6,438) Net cash from investing activities (405) to (150) Capex and financial investment (784) to (1,632)
Cash outflow before financing (5,952) to (8,220) Financing (5,767) to (8,125) Decrease in cash in year (185) to (95)
- lower construction costs; - greater focus on building impressive hospitality areas (which would be easier to sell in that location) rather than more cheap seats; - real pricing power if/when demand exists to fill it ie. in Premiership, - better atmosphere.
Good, rational advocacy of the idea of moving. Suggest we all keep this list and test it further.
As a start point for the counter-argument, lets remind ourselves of the following:
1. There are fairly developed plans to expand the Valley to 32,000 and then to 40,000. The first one received planning approval, I think, but has probably lapsed. These plans of course focused on increasing corporate entertainment capacity
2. "Atmosphere" is a a qualitative judgement, and is more than just a roof that keeps the noise in. A lot of people don't rate many of the new stadia in this respect. The AMEX is an exception which rather shows up the rule. The 32,000 upgrade I think involved filling in the corners of the Valley, which would improve the noise rentention.
3. Unusually among football stadia, The Valley has a railway station with a regular service right alongside, it, and it takes people to where much of the fanbase already lives. That is far less true about North Greenwich tube.
4. "Heritage' is a strong marketing tool in football, as was demonstrated at CAFC throughout the 90s and first half noughties.
If there is a business case, lets examine and rationally debate it. However if the main 'case' is to enable TJ and others to get their money back, that is not a business case.
Maybe the moving from the Valley issue needs a thread of its own now. I'll start it using NYA's points above, and my first attempt at case for the defence.
- lower construction costs; - greater focus on building impressive hospitality areas (which would be easier to sell in that location) rather than more cheap seats; - real pricing power if/when demand exists to fill it ie. in Premiership, - better atmosphere.
Good, rational advocacy of the idea of moving. Suggest we all keep this list and test it further.
As a start point for the counter-argument, lets remind ourselves of the following:
1. There are fairly developed plans to expand the Valley to 32,000 and then to 40,000. The first one received planning approval, I think, but has probably lapsed. These plans of course focused on increasing corporate entertainment capacity
2. "Atmosphere" is a a qualitative judgement, and is more than just a roof that keeps the noise in. A lot of people don't rate many of the new stadia in this respect. The AMEX is an exception which rather shows up the rule. The 32,000 upgrade I think involved filling in the corners of the Valley, which would improve the noise rentention.
3. Unusually among football stadia, The Valley has a railway station with a regular service right alongside, it, and it takes people to where much of the fanbase already lives. That is far less true about North Greenwich tube.
4. "Heritage' is a strong marketing tool in football, as was demonstrated at CAFC throughout the 90s and first half noughties.
If there is a business case, lets examine and rationally debate it. However if the main 'case' is to enable TJ and others to get their money back, that is not a business case.
A good point well made about the transport links. People assume Tube = better but in fact our traditional supporter base is better served by the train lines into Charlton station than the tube into North Greenwich which would see us competing more directly with West Ham.
I'm not against us ever moving, if we were faced with the prospect of flogging the Valley and moving somewhere that could be evidentially judged to be better commercially (provided it was in the borough) then I'd have to consider it. What I am 100% for is that in the case of the Valley being sold the supporters being consulted.
If enough people see a way of making money out of a move away from The Valley be they the Mysterons, outside investors or politicians then you can be absolutely certain that these people will be all over it like a rash. If you add to that mix a face and investment saving exit strategy for desperate owners then the prospect of something happening becomes very real.
Rikileaks is a term that will move into Charlton folklore. Brilliant.
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.
So in some way the council are going to build social housing on a site that has contamination on it?. It not only is going to do that but build a new stadia with the infastructure, or seek private investment. But apparently ACV does not make a jot?. So the fans have no reason to be notified? The management/board and council just decide these things and the fans go along with it?. No thanks, not that I think the council has a pot to piss in, let alone support an expensive scheme like this with all the add on's that will become part of the final bill. Based on the attendance yesterday why would they need to?
You're missing the point. I'm not arguing for the likelihood of that scenario, I'm arguing there are different scenarios than those suggested, and they don't necessarily involve improving Charlton long term.
I've lost count of how many times I've pointed this out, the ACV will make little or no difference in the event the board are intent on moving to a new stadium. It wouldn't have stopped the Message to Our Supporters. You could see a scenario that the club didn't sell The Valley until they had actually entered a deal to play somewhere else. The ACV would have no power whatsoever in that scenario, the 8 weeks/6 month periods would make zero difference, and the decision to buy a stadium that might never be used again is unlikely to be one the Trust would rush into.
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?
Some of Richard Muray's loan appears to have been renegotiated and £250k has been repaid on schedule. At 2012 year end he had 1.55m that was due for repayment in instalments on promotion to the Championship - £250k of it in 2012/13. At March 2013 he was owed £1m (over and above the £2.4m already on the same terms as the ex-director loans) and this too is now repayable on promotion to the PL but attracts interest at 3 per cent. The other £300k I can't find, but may be accounted for by a £400k increase in bank loans and overdrafts.
A point to note is that the assumptions for 2013/14 are the same as 2012/13, even though they have removed about £2m from the player wages budget (and then added some of that back in).
- lower construction costs; - greater focus on building impressive hospitality areas (which would be easier to sell in that location) rather than more cheap seats; - real pricing power if/when demand exists to fill it ie. in Premiership, - better atmosphere.
Good, rational advocacy of the idea of moving. Suggest we all keep this list and test it further.
As a start point for the counter-argument, lets remind ourselves of the following:
1. There are fairly developed plans to expand the Valley to 32,000 and then to 40,000. The first one received planning approval, I think, but has probably lapsed. These plans of course focused on increasing corporate entertainment capacity
2. "Atmosphere" is a a qualitative judgement, and is more than just a roof that keeps the noise in. A lot of people don't rate many of the new stadia in this respect. The AMEX is an exception which rather shows up the rule. The 32,000 upgrade I think involved filling in the corners of the Valley, which would improve the noise rentention.
3. Unusually among football stadia, The Valley has a railway station with a regular service right alongside, it, and it takes people to where much of the fanbase already lives. That is far less true about North Greenwich tube.
4. "Heritage' is a strong marketing tool in football, as was demonstrated at CAFC throughout the 90s and first half noughties.
If there is a business case, lets examine and rationally debate it. However if the main 'case' is to enable TJ and others to get their money back, that is not a business case.
A good point well made about the transport links. People assume Tube = better but in fact our traditional supporter base is better served by the train lines into Charlton station than the tube into North Greenwich which would see us competing more directly with West Ham.
I'm not against us ever moving, if we were faced with the prospect of flogging the Valley and moving somewhere that could be evidentially judged to be better commercially (provided it was in the borough) then I'd have to consider it. What I am 100% for is that in the case of the Valley being sold the supporters being consulted.
One could argue (from a pure business perspective) that the 'traditional' fanbase will come anyhow. A location right next to a modern tube station with direct links to the City, West End and Canary Wharf however would make selling corporate hospitality a breeze (in the Prem of course), whilst making us an easy sell too for any casual fans (especially tourists) curious to see a Prem game and unable to do so elsewhere.
Let's not forget the O2 is next door with a myriad of food/drink options already built out - again makes it a lot easier to persuade the casual fan. Considerable scope for marketing/promotional tie-ups too.
These are part of the reasons why I am surprised Spurs seem to be pursuing a new stadium in such a dreadful location, right next to their current one.
- lower construction costs; - greater focus on building impressive hospitality areas (which would be easier to sell in that location) rather than more cheap seats; - real pricing power if/when demand exists to fill it ie. in Premiership, - better atmosphere.
Good, rational advocacy of the idea of moving. Suggest we all keep this list and test it further.
As a start point for the counter-argument, lets remind ourselves of the following:
1. There are fairly developed plans to expand the Valley to 32,000 and then to 40,000. The first one received planning approval, I think, but has probably lapsed. These plans of course focused on increasing corporate entertainment capacity
2. "Atmosphere" is a a qualitative judgement, and is more than just a roof that keeps the noise in. A lot of people don't rate many of the new stadia in this respect. The AMEX is an exception which rather shows up the rule. The 32,000 upgrade I think involved filling in the corners of the Valley, which would improve the noise rentention.
3. Unusually among football stadia, The Valley has a railway station with a regular service right alongside, it, and it takes people to where much of the fanbase already lives. That is far less true about North Greenwich tube.
4. "Heritage' is a strong marketing tool in football, as was demonstrated at CAFC throughout the 90s and first half noughties.
If there is a business case, lets examine and rationally debate it. However if the main 'case' is to enable TJ and others to get their money back, that is not a business case.
That is exactly what it is if the owners of the business want their money back. This is particularly true if their interest in the club is limited to their exit strategy.
All the while fans demand that these men sink their personal fortunes into their (the fans) hobby there is no good reason as to why they (MS and TJ) would feel obliged to do anything other than what suits them best financially.
2 things according to the plan I saw we would no longer be in Se7 and nearest station would be Westcombe park I believe, anyone concur? Right back to the pool now
Agree completely with KHA. Rational advocacy of moving from our (fans) perspective does not come in to it. The only rational advocacy that counts as far as the owners are concerned centres on them getting their money back and getting out - and they (not us) will be the ones who make the decision.
2 things according to the plan I saw we would no longer be in Se7 and nearest station would be Westcombe park I believe, anyone concur? Right back to the pool now
If Greenwich's 2027 plan is what you're thinking of you're right, although it also includes an extension of the DLR, which appears to link with the Woolwich line & Lewisham.
- lower construction costs; - greater focus on building impressive hospitality areas (which would be easier to sell in that location) rather than more cheap seats; - real pricing power if/when demand exists to fill it ie. in Premiership, - better atmosphere.
Good, rational advocacy of the idea of moving. Suggest we all keep this list and test it further.
As a start point for the counter-argument, lets remind ourselves of the following:
1. There are fairly developed plans to expand the Valley to 32,000 and then to 40,000. The first one received planning approval, I think, but has probably lapsed. These plans of course focused on increasing corporate entertainment capacity
2. "Atmosphere" is a a qualitative judgement, and is more than just a roof that keeps the noise in. A lot of people don't rate many of the new stadia in this respect. The AMEX is an exception which rather shows up the rule. The 32,000 upgrade I think involved filling in the corners of the Valley, which would improve the noise rentention.
3. Unusually among football stadia, The Valley has a railway station with a regular service right alongside, it, and it takes people to where much of the fanbase already lives. That is far less true about North Greenwich tube.
4. "Heritage' is a strong marketing tool in football, as was demonstrated at CAFC throughout the 90s and first half noughties.
If there is a business case, lets examine and rationally debate it. However if the main 'case' is to enable TJ and others to get their money back, that is not a business case.
A good point well made about the transport links. People assume Tube = better but in fact our traditional supporter base is better served by the train lines into Charlton station than the tube into North Greenwich which would see us competing more directly with West Ham.
I'm not against us ever moving, if we were faced with the prospect of flogging the Valley and moving somewhere that could be evidentially judged to be better commercially (provided it was in the borough) then I'd have to consider it. What I am 100% for is that in the case of the Valley being sold the supporters being consulted.
Well. Firstly, the walk from Charlton station - or even Westcombe park - is still an option, even if it is slightly longer. Secondly, the Council's Peninsular West masterplan last year included a DLR extension that would open HS1 up from Stratford, and would no doubt be just one stop along from Woolwich Arsenal or Greenwich and SouthEastern trains.
There's a blog post here with links to more detailed information.
The core of this plan is a sports/entertainment facility that "links with and complements the offer at the O2 arena." I think one might infer AEG's involvement from that but who knows. It is proposed to include hotel and hospitality space, which would be another revenue stream, and 7000 new residences.
Funding wasn't identified when the masterplan was published, but clearly if the stadium could be at least part funded by 'an elite sports facility', such as a professional football club looking to move, this would be desirable to RBG whilst also delivering several hundred new residences on the Valley site.
I think we ought to be realistic about this. If the club are offering RBG a means of progressing their masterplan they're hardly going to reject it out of hand. More poignantly, they will probably feel reasonably confident that with the club having an alternative stadium in the borough any single issue political movement focused on the Valley itself may not have the same influence it had all those years ago.
Still, I would encourage their complacency because it only serves the opposition. All this might put the council in a difficult position regarding approval of the ACV application. Turn it down and it exposes their plans. Approve it and it might be a political nightmare to be seen to be party to the club leaving the Valley in the mid-term.
Still, I would encourage their complacency because it only serves the opposition. All this might put the council in a difficult position regarding approval of the ACV application. Turn it down and it exposes their plans. Approve it and it might be a political nightmare to be seen to be party to the club leaving the Valley in the mid-term.
Exactly. I was going to point out to you that applying for ACV is a powerful reminder to Greenwich Council whom they are accountable to, and for that reason alone it's worth doing. Saved me the bother, but I thought I'd mention it anyway, as its important :-) There are now wider issues regarding GC's conduct raised by yesterday's Voice.
Comments
I wouldn't make any assumptions like "starved of money" or "due to player increases" as the table will show precisely why the funding is not the same as the previous season nor the losses.
The Trust prediction last March was that funding would be the same as the losses at £7M because depreciation on The Valley (not cash) at £1M is virtually the same as the bank loan repayment on the North Upper (not profit and loss) AND the income streams from player payments from other teams (Liverpool, Newcastle, Man U and Arsenal) are the same as new registrations.
I think we saw today that even if the numbers look like they are standing still albeit at £7M losses every year, what matters is what happens on the pitch. The first team needs luck, good management and the injection of talent to keep climbing... the first two years were the easy bit!
It's almost 2 a.m. and from my view overlooking the ground I can see the lights still on all through the West Stand. Summat afoot ?
I imagine that the disclosures in VoTV have been profoundly upsetting for the owners.
Btw, will the infamous report now be known as Rickileaks ?
Superb, Stig - one of your finest !!
Incidentally, the lights went out some time between 5 and 6 .... no wonder our costs are so high : it's the leccy ....
Based on the attendance yesterday why would they need to?
Not that I will, even if it was free to watch CAFC.
Why would you build a smaller stadium? it is all the infastructure and possible additional revenue that a venue could possibly raise i.e concerts that a consortium would be interested in a football stadia with 20 games a year?. How on earth is that financially viable.? We tried ground sharing, even hosting the bronco's was an abject failure.
What happens if we get relegated?. Nice shiny new stadia, a park and ride scheme?. There may also be an objection from other clubs, not too keen on this aka: Westham who have a certain stadia to fill, not too far away, and they play apparently prem football.......
"Then why move ?"
Because the owners want their money back. They have discovered that the Club we love is located in one of the more round own parts of London. No private investor is clamouring
Stig's Rikileaks is first class. T- shirt please.
- greater focus on building impressive hospitality areas (which would be easier to sell in that location) rather than more cheap seats;
- real pricing power if/when demand exists to fill it ie. in Premiership,
- better atmosphere.
Net cash from operating activities (4,763) to (6,438)
Net cash from investing activities (405) to (150)
Capex and financial investment (784) to (1,632)
Cash outflow before financing (5,952) to (8,220)
Financing (5,767) to (8,125)
Decrease in cash in year (185) to (95)
As a start point for the counter-argument, lets remind ourselves of the following:
1. There are fairly developed plans to expand the Valley to 32,000 and then to 40,000. The first one received planning approval, I think, but has probably lapsed. These plans of course focused on increasing corporate entertainment capacity
2. "Atmosphere" is a a qualitative judgement, and is more than just a roof that keeps the noise in. A lot of people don't rate many of the new stadia in this respect. The AMEX is an exception which rather shows up the rule. The 32,000 upgrade I think involved filling in the corners of the Valley, which would improve the noise rentention.
3. Unusually among football stadia, The Valley has a railway station with a regular service right alongside, it, and it takes people to where much of the fanbase already lives. That is far less true about North Greenwich tube.
4. "Heritage' is a strong marketing tool in football, as was demonstrated at CAFC throughout the 90s and first half noughties.
If there is a business case, lets examine and rationally debate it. However if the main 'case' is to enable TJ and others to get their money back, that is not a business case.
I'm not against us ever moving, if we were faced with the prospect of flogging the Valley and moving somewhere that could be evidentially judged to be better commercially (provided it was in the borough) then I'd have to consider it. What I am 100% for is that in the case of the Valley being sold the supporters being consulted.
Rikileaks is a term that will move into Charlton folklore. Brilliant.
I've lost count of how many times I've pointed this out, the ACV will make little or no difference in the event the board are intent on moving to a new stadium. It wouldn't have stopped the Message to Our Supporters. You could see a scenario that the club didn't sell The Valley until they had actually entered a deal to play somewhere else. The ACV would have no power whatsoever in that scenario, the 8 weeks/6 month periods would make zero difference, and the decision to buy a stadium that might never be used again is unlikely to be one the Trust would rush into.
A point to note is that the assumptions for 2013/14 are the same as 2012/13, even though they have removed about £2m from the player wages budget (and then added some of that back in).
Let's not forget the O2 is next door with a myriad of food/drink options already built out - again makes it a lot easier to persuade the casual fan. Considerable scope for marketing/promotional tie-ups too.
These are part of the reasons why I am surprised Spurs seem to be pursuing a new stadium in such a dreadful location, right next to their current one.
All the while fans demand that these men sink their personal fortunes into their (the fans) hobby there is no good reason as to why they (MS and TJ) would feel obliged to do anything other than what suits them best financially.
http://greenwichrising.com/2961/greenwich-council-unveils-peninsula-eltham-charlton-and-woolwich-masterplans/
There's a blog post here with links to more detailed information.
The core of this plan is a sports/entertainment facility that "links with and complements the offer at the O2 arena." I think one might infer AEG's involvement from that but who knows. It is proposed to include hotel and hospitality space, which would be another revenue stream, and 7000 new residences.
Funding wasn't identified when the masterplan was published, but clearly if the stadium could be at least part funded by 'an elite sports facility', such as a professional football club looking to move, this would be desirable to RBG whilst also delivering several hundred new residences on the Valley site.
I think we ought to be realistic about this. If the club are offering RBG a means of progressing their masterplan they're hardly going to reject it out of hand. More poignantly, they will probably feel reasonably confident that with the club having an alternative stadium in the borough any single issue political movement focused on the Valley itself may not have the same influence it had all those years ago.
Still, I would encourage their complacency because it only serves the opposition. All this might put the council in a difficult position regarding approval of the ACV application. Turn it down and it exposes their plans. Approve it and it might be a political nightmare to be seen to be party to the club leaving the Valley in the mid-term.
Still, I would encourage their complacency because it only serves the opposition. All this might put the council in a difficult position regarding approval of the ACV application. Turn it down and it exposes their plans. Approve it and it might be a political nightmare to be seen to be party to the club leaving the Valley in the mid-term.
Exactly. I was going to point out to you that applying for ACV is a powerful reminder to Greenwich Council whom they are accountable to, and for that reason alone it's worth doing. Saved me the bother, but I thought I'd mention it anyway, as its important :-) There are now wider issues regarding GC's conduct raised by yesterday's Voice.