Interesting thread. We are probably spending too long thinking like football fans and not enough time thinking like property developers.
At the moment, CAFC loses money. There are some loans but the losses are secured on two properties, as far as I can see - The Valley and Sparrows Lane. So, say you are holding the paper on this and you want your money back. LB Greenwich and the Mayor of London (who has the power to make planning decisions over the heads of boroughs now) will take a dim view of a residential application on The Valley if there's no new ground.
So you need to find a new ground. There's regen land available on the peninsula. Possibly in the ownership of LB Greenwich, possibly not (anyone know?). Now, no one is going to make money building a new football ground for CAFC. Or, anyway, no bank is going to lend the money to anyone saying that they can make money by building a new ground for CAFC. So you need some enabling development. Yes, a nice leisure thing or two but mostly housing. It will be close to North Greenwich and therefore attractive to people working in Canary Wharf.
Now, subject to viability, developers are required to build housing that can be sold to a providr of affordable housing. The term affordable housing includes shared ownership and discounted rents of the kind that used to be called council housing - that is, a rent below the rent level found on the open market. (Definitions again, for the Mayor of London, affordable rent is rent at 80% of market rent, for many Registered Social Landlords a lower rate of between 50 and 65% is charged).
Whatever, no developer will want to build this tenure of housing on the Peninsula site. The thing is being built to kame money. The football ground has to be there if the Borough have identified the area for sports use of some kind. But what about affordable housing?
Well, there's a now-vacant site in Floyd Road SE7 which could become a donor site for affordable housing.
Frankly, I think it's a load of rubbish and is just bunged in a sales document to sweeten things up. But if we are going to get into this, it is pointless pretending that the people who mostly own our club care about our club. They do not (and I have to say I respect them for not pretending otherwise and having pictures taken of themselves in home shirts, but anyway).
It's all about the Trust really. Am happy to help v Doncaster if it's helpful.
(By the way, I type this 50 yards from Griffin Park. In the autumn they will go to Hounslow Council's planning committee to seek permission for a new stadium, on land that is at present mostly a waste transfer station. The stadium will be paid for by around 900 flats. None of them affordable).
Location - why Greenwich at all? If you were going to move then do what Airman has done and analyse where the fanbase lives - as NY Addick states, Ebbsfleet looks interesting - Airman (and Trust surveys) suggest this is the centre of the fanbase is indeed somewhere around Ebbsfleet but KEH appear to have got there first!
SR
Yep, funny that.
Someone knows roughly where the centre of Charlton (a club potentially on the decline) support is, and before you know it, a 'mini-Charlton' appears to emerge right in the centre of it......
Is that the same club that had a 5 page spread in Voice of the Valley? [soon to be known as the Bluewater echo] I can do conspiracy theories too!
It is worth remembering that most of them moved because they couldn't, in their judgement, convert their existing stadia into a Taylor-compliant Premier League stadium. In some cases they received financial support to build a Taylor ready stadium. Their fans will have recognised the logic of the argument.
Richard Murray and co also decided to build a Taylor-compliant Premier League stadium. Unfortunately the timing was such that it preceded all the State grant money, so they had to fund it themselves, over a longer period. But they did it. This new stadium is called The Valley. We love it, because it is new, and yet is the same Valley which hosted Sam Bartram, Len Glover, and Derek Hales. Many away fans describe it as one of the country's most atmospheric grounds. I never heard anyone say that of the Reebok.
I know other fans were attached to their old stadia. The Boro guy referred to that in his write up for us. But none of them went through what we did, losing it and then fighting to get it back. Of course people felt attached to Ayresome, Boothferry, Filbert Street. But they didnt go through what we went through, and they didnt do what we did.
nothing in football is guaranteed? When we start to fall again, that's when the brand helps keep attendances higher than they would otherwise be.
Not sure that really makes any difference in today's football world Prague. We have our brand and look at the state we are in.A few more through the turnstile matters not one jot imo. When you talk about brands in football I would assume it is the potential to sell shirts, merchandise and have a following in areas not necessarily in the catchment area of the club they belong. How many of the kids that come to Charlton today also spend Sunday afternoons watching super Sunday and have an affinity with another premier league club? Quite a few I would think.A real problem for the future and something that never had to be dealt with when we were young.Combatting it is going to be a real challenge and I fear that a lot of clubs will get wiped off of the map before long because of it. Sustainability will be a big problem for the run of the mill lower league clubs as the people willing to finance them,as we have found,are just not willing to do it anymore.
I think any move would either be tied up with some property deal or a billionaire plaything, neither of which may be desireable.
With enough investment and smart Ideas the Valley would in my view be more than viable. Maybe not overnight but I remain to be convinced this is not an option. The stupid money in our game goes mainly to players and agents.
We did this once and could do it again. Even if it means standing in another local or general election, I'm up for that..
Reading these posts and feeling this is all unreal...but alas it's not.
I don't understand all the figures quoted , neither would I recognise a business plan if it hit me in the face.
I'm just a simple, but passionate Addick who has supported everything I possibly can over the past 23 years to help keep our Club in business.....like many others. And I'll continue to do so in any way I can.
Yes, The Valley is our home & I'm unsure at the moment how I'd feel if we had to move to another part of the Borough.
What I do know is that the future of Charlton Athletic is a huge concern - we don't need NLA's crystal balls to tell us that.
What bothers me is that it has taken Airman/Mark K's piece in yesterday's Voice , followed by extensive discussion on here with more information exchanged, to bring the current issue to our attention. And as a result, people like Prague have contributed their respected views & ideas regarding the next step for us to consider & hence some progress has been made towards this.
But, how many "average" Charlton fans will read the Voice and/or this & allied threads ? ie How many regulars at The Valley will be unaware of this issue ? A survey as mooted by seriously_red , I believe , in order to gauge opinions , is one option but fans will need to know the background facts before they're able to comment.
My question is, how to reach the thousands that SHOULD be made aware of what's possibly afoot ? A simple question from a simple Fan but one that I can't stop pondering tonight.
Reading these posts and feeling this is all unreal...but alas it's not.
I don't understand all the figures quoted , neither would I recognise a business plan if it hit me in the face.
I'm just a simple, but passionate Addick who has supported everything I possibly can over the past 23 years to help keep our Club in business.....like many others. And I'll continue to do so in any way I can.
Yes, The Valley is our home & I'm unsure at the moment how I'd feel if we had to move to another part of the Borough.
What I do know is that the future of Charlton Athletic is a huge concern - we don't need NLA's crystal balls to tell us that.
What bothers me is that it has taken Airman/Mark K's piece in yesterday's Voice , followed by extensive discussion on here with more information exchanged, to bring the current issue to our attention. And as a result, people like Prague have contributed their respected views & ideas regarding the next step for us to consider & hence some progress has been made towards this.
But, how many "average" Charlton fans will read the Voice and/or this & allied threads ? ie How many regulars at The Valley will be unaware of this issue ? A survey as mooted by seriously_red , I believe , in order to gauge opinions , is one option but fans will need to know the background facts before they're able to comment.
My question is, how to reach the thousands that SHOULD be made aware of what's possibly afoot ? A simple question from a simple Fan but one that I can't stop pondering tonight.
Worried of Dartford.
I sense a CASTrust survey coming on... I wonder if the club will promote it or whether it best that the fans on here help to engage with the whole fanbase to engage, ask opinions and generally build a better picture of CAFC direction.
Still think people are focussing (quite rightly) on CAFC. The football club would IMHO only be part of any equation to make a new stadium viable. Multi use is what this is all about. Gaining income streams over and above one day in fourteen. A second sport . A third sport ? Conference facilities in a very good location. Luxury housing, commercial outlets, concerts, etc. etc. That model if I am correct is what might be being considered. That can't happen at Ebbsfleet or Kings Hill or at Sparrows Lane. It's not just about football.
we have to own that stadium though SHG to grow the football club, otherwise we are only tennants, If we are going to do it to grow the club and to gain the income streams we need to own it not contribute towards their income streams
Makros is right behind some prime river front real estate, and that much closer to the dome.
You could setup some more bustrams between the two, I believe these and river front trams of some sort have been mooted for some time.
Also woolwich is on the dlr, now which is one stop from the ngreenwich tube (the dlr I mean)
Interested to know from AB what the transport split is currently for our fans?
Razil, I know you're in Bexley and therefore one of the deprived re public transport, but have a look at the DLR map. There is no DLR connection between Woolwich Arsenal and North Greenwich. It's five stops to Canning Town and then change on to the Jubilee Line for one stop. And that's after you've got to Woolwich.
There's plenty of research into transport modes, including but not limited to the travel plans attached to the various planning applications. But the short answer is that most people come by car.
Ebbsfleet in not the centre of our support by numbers. That's probably Eltham/Sidcup. Most supporters live inside the M25, where the population is considerably more dense (read into that what you will!). I'd no more assume people would travel out than in, and I don't advocate leaving London/Greenwich/SE7 for that reason alone, although at least in Kent there would probably be parking!
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)
Well, no, it wouldn't help at all actually. As far as people who use expensive hospitality are concerned, there is a big, big problem with public transport and the clue is in the name: public transport has nasty, smelly hoi polloi travelling on it. And corporations and their clients wouldn't be seen dead anywhere near it. Corporate hospitality would be a very hard sell indeed unless there was viable "Range Rover to stadium without getting wet" parking on site that came as part of the package. The RBG is so anti-car and inadequate parking facilities would make the whole project untenable. Something at least the size of the West Stand car park plus maybe 50% would be needed. I don't see any indication of that in the RBG sketch of the site.
It is worth remembering that most of them moved because they couldn't, in their judgement, convert their existing stadia into a Taylor-compliant Premier League stadium. In some cases they received financial support to build a Taylor ready stadium. Their fans will have recognised the logic of the argument.
Richard Murray and co also decided to build a Taylor-compliant Premier League stadium. Unfortunately the timing was such that it preceded all the State grant money, so they had to fund it themselves, over a longer period. But they did it. This new stadium is called The Valley. We love it, because it is new, and yet is the same Valley which hosted Sam Bartram, Len Glover, and Derek Hales. Many away fans describe it as one of the country's most atmospheric grounds. I never heard anyone say that of the Reebok.
I know other fans were attached to their old stadia. The Boro guy referred to that in his write up for us. But none of them went through what we did, losing it and then fighting to get it back. Of course people felt attached to Ayresome, Boothferry, Filbert Street. But they didnt go through what we went through, and they didnt do what we did.
It is a bigger call.
Prague, you are of course right. There is no Club that we can compare to in this respect except Brighton and look at the stadium they have and the crowds they draw in as compared to the Withdean and the Goldstone. I am sure their fans were gutted when they left the Goldstone although of course it was ageing and not fit for purpose as a football stadium, in my opinion. I am NOT saying we should leave The Valley and neither do I particularly want to but if a sound business proposal were put forward then I would give it due consideration. I would however want the Club to own any such stadium, not rent etc.
It is worth remembering that most of them moved because they couldn't, in their judgement, convert their existing stadia into a Taylor-compliant Premier League stadium. In some cases they received financial support to build a Taylor ready stadium. Their fans will have recognised the logic of the argument.
Richard Murray and co also decided to build a Taylor-compliant Premier League stadium. Unfortunately the timing was such that it preceded all the State grant money, so they had to fund it themselves, over a longer period. But they did it. This new stadium is called The Valley. We love it, because it is new, and yet is the same Valley which hosted Sam Bartram, Len Glover, and Derek Hales. Many away fans describe it as one of the country's most atmospheric grounds. I never heard anyone say that of the Reebok.
I know other fans were attached to their old stadia. The Boro guy referred to that in his write up for us. But none of them went through what we did, losing it and then fighting to get it back. Of course people felt attached to Ayresome, Boothferry, Filbert Street. But they didnt go through what we went through, and they didnt do what we did.
It is a bigger call.
Prague, you are of course right. There is no Club that we can compare to in this respect except Brighton and look at the stadium they have and the crowds they draw in as compared to the Withdean and the Goldstone. I am sure their fans were gutted when they left the Goldstone although of course it was ageing and not fit for purpose as a football stadium, in my opinion. I am NOT saying we should leave The Valley and neither do I particularly want to but if a sound business proposal were put forward then I would give it due consideration. I would however want the Club to own any such stadium, not rent etc.
I guess the Brighton case would correspond to the options we had in 1990. If it had turned out that returning to the Valley would not have been viable, but an alternative site was available ideally in SE7 (and this was discussed a bit , as I recall), I think we would have mostly been positive about it, got behind it, and it would have been successful like Brighton is (all credit to those admirable guys, who in turn looked to us as role models).
But we made that choice, and worked on it over 15 years. The Valley brand isn't just based on 1990, but everything that followed it.
Playing devil's advocate again. Let's say your favorite band re-formed after 10 years for a gig at the O2 and in the past you always saw them at Wembley, would you say "I'm not going because it's not at Wembley"?
I do see where people are coming from and my initial reaction to the suggestion of a move to the peninsular was that it would finish me going to games. But would it, or would I (and many others) get used to it over time and drift back? It is Charlton Athletic after all.
Hello mate. Trouble is your favourite band did reform, and at the O2, and like me, we did not get a look in did we.? Difference is millions applied for that gig, not too sure about the numbers at the CAFC gig. With or without a more comfy seat, and a prawn sandwich, in alleged comfy surroundings.
Football is an emotive, cultural, evocative sport, not a shopping experience. You could change all sorts of things, the club colours, the name, and move. I think they call that branding. As Martin Samuels talked yesterday on the Sunday supplement, To use his example, based on Coventry,call yourself addicks and you could play anywhere. Call yourself Charlton, and step outside SE7, and the issues get very abstract, or words similar. Why not move Manchester United to London, after all most of the fans come from around here?
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)
Well, no, it wouldn't help at all actually. As far as people who use expensive hospitality are concerned, there is a big, big problem with public transport and the clue is in the name: public transport has nasty, smelly hoi polloi travelling on it. And corporations and their clients wouldn't be seen dead anywhere near it. Corporate hospitality would be a very hard sell indeed unless there was viable "Range Rover to stadium without getting wet" parking on site that came as part of the package. The RBG is so anti-car and inadequate parking facilities would make the whole project untenable. Something at least the size of the West Stand car park plus maybe 50% would be needed. I don't see any indication of that in the RBG sketch of the site.
This post needs to be carefully noted and preserved.
NYA may disagree with you. I have a hunch you are right. The prudent business owner will go out and research the issue (Or may have access to solid research which confirms your assertion, in which case he needn't reinvent the wheel). Anyway, you have put down the warning.
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)
Well, no, it wouldn't help at all actually. As far as people who use expensive hospitality are concerned, there is a big, big problem with public transport and the clue is in the name: public transport has nasty, smelly hoi polloi travelling on it. And corporations and their clients wouldn't be seen dead anywhere near it. Corporate hospitality would be a very hard sell indeed unless there was viable "Range Rover to stadium without getting wet" parking on site that came as part of the package. The RBG is so anti-car and inadequate parking facilities would make the whole project untenable. Something at least the size of the West Stand car park plus maybe 50% would be needed. I don't see any indication of that in the RBG sketch of the site.
Lords, Wimbledon, Twickenham and virtually every Premiership club in London are not exactly inundated with parking spaces. Seems a strange comment about the typical invitee of the companies owning these boxes.
The arguments about where our core support lies and the emotional attachment to The Valley are all very valid, but the quality of the Peninsula location has been proven by the success of the O2 (which incidentally hasn't had many problems selling its corporate hospitality suites).
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)
Well, no, it wouldn't help at all actually. As far as people who use expensive hospitality are concerned, there is a big, big problem with public transport and the clue is in the name: public transport has nasty, smelly hoi polloi travelling on it. And corporations and their clients wouldn't be seen dead anywhere near it. Corporate hospitality would be a very hard sell indeed unless there was viable "Range Rover to stadium without getting wet" parking on site that came as part of the package. The RBG is so anti-car and inadequate parking facilities would make the whole project untenable. Something at least the size of the West Stand car park plus maybe 50% would be needed. I don't see any indication of that in the RBG sketch of the site.
Not so sure about that. Ever been to Lords cricket ground. Some of the hoity toitiest corporate people you'll ever meet. And they're on the piss all day! I can assure you not many of them drive there.
You could change all sorts of things, the club colours, the name, and move. I think they call that branding.
Ken
It would be called branding by people with a dangerous misunderstanding of marketing. Many of whom nevertheless have the word 'marketing' in their job title.
It is reasonable to suppose that the colour of the Cardiff City brand is blue. If you are the owner of the Cardiff City brand and you choose not to believe that this is important, you better have market research based evidence (i.e. ask the fans) before you go tampering with such things.
Good marketing is based on a thorough understanding of your customer's needs, wants, perceptions and beliefs. You only get this by asking them. Too many businesses don't bother, but instead make 'impertinent assumptions" a classic phrase used by David Lacey of the Guardian to describe the belief by our then directors that we'd all dutifully head off to Selhurst park to watch "Charlton Athletic".
The O2 is different, you buy a box there for access to a range of events, a very high quality experience, the advantage of being right by North Greenwich and the river, and the associated perks you get from AEG.
The outlay on the O2 was close to a billion to get it to where it is today.
The idea that this new stadium would take business away to justify its multiuse from the O2, Olympic Park, ExCeL or even Wembley arena is pie in the sky for me
Comments
At the moment, CAFC loses money. There are some loans but the losses are secured on two properties, as far as I can see - The Valley and Sparrows Lane. So, say you are holding the paper on this and you want your money back. LB Greenwich and the Mayor of London (who has the power to make planning decisions over the heads of boroughs now) will take a dim view of a residential application on The Valley if there's no new ground.
So you need to find a new ground. There's regen land available on the peninsula. Possibly in the ownership of LB Greenwich, possibly not (anyone know?). Now, no one is going to make money building a new football ground for CAFC. Or, anyway, no bank is going to lend the money to anyone saying that they can make money by building a new ground for CAFC. So you need some enabling development. Yes, a nice leisure thing or two but mostly housing. It will be close to North Greenwich and therefore attractive to people working in Canary Wharf.
Now, subject to viability, developers are required to build housing that can be sold to a providr of affordable housing. The term affordable housing includes shared ownership and discounted rents of the kind that used to be called council housing - that is, a rent below the rent level found on the open market. (Definitions again, for the Mayor of London, affordable rent is rent at 80% of market rent, for many Registered Social Landlords a lower rate of between 50 and 65% is charged).
Whatever, no developer will want to build this tenure of housing on the Peninsula site. The thing is being built to kame money. The football ground has to be there if the Borough have identified the area for sports use of some kind. But what about affordable housing?
Well, there's a now-vacant site in Floyd Road SE7 which could become a donor site for affordable housing.
Frankly, I think it's a load of rubbish and is just bunged in a sales document to sweeten things up. But if we are going to get into this, it is pointless pretending that the people who mostly own our club care about our club. They do not (and I have to say I respect them for not pretending otherwise and having pictures taken of themselves in home shirts, but anyway).
It's all about the Trust really. Am happy to help v Doncaster if it's helpful.
(By the way, I type this 50 yards from Griffin Park. In the autumn they will go to Hounslow Council's planning committee to seek permission for a new stadium, on land that is at present mostly a waste transfer station. The stadium will be paid for by around 900 flats. None of them affordable).
Regarding the other clubs who moved...
It is worth remembering that most of them moved because they couldn't, in their judgement, convert their existing stadia into a Taylor-compliant Premier League stadium. In some cases they received financial support to build a Taylor ready stadium. Their fans will have recognised the logic of the argument.
Richard Murray and co also decided to build a Taylor-compliant Premier League stadium. Unfortunately the timing was such that it preceded all the State grant money, so they had to fund it themselves, over a longer period. But they did it. This new stadium is called The Valley. We love it, because it is new, and yet is the same Valley which hosted Sam Bartram, Len Glover, and Derek Hales. Many away fans describe it as one of the country's most atmospheric grounds. I never heard anyone say that of the Reebok.
I know other fans were attached to their old stadia. The Boro guy referred to that in his write up for us. But none of them went through what we did, losing it and then fighting to get it back. Of course people felt attached to Ayresome, Boothferry, Filbert Street. But they didnt go through what we went through, and they didnt do what we did.
It is a bigger call.
When you talk about brands in football I would assume it is the potential to sell shirts, merchandise and have a following in areas not necessarily in the catchment area of the club they belong.
How many of the kids that come to Charlton today also spend Sunday afternoons watching super Sunday and have an affinity with another premier league club? Quite a few I would think.A real problem for the future and something that never had to be dealt with when we were young.Combatting it is going to be a real challenge and I fear that a lot of clubs will get wiped off of the map before long because of it. Sustainability will be a big problem for the run of the mill lower league clubs as the people willing to finance them,as we have found,are just not willing to do it anymore.
With enough investment and smart
Ideas the Valley would in my view be more than viable. Maybe not overnight but I remain to be convinced this is not an option. The stupid money in our game goes mainly to players and agents.
We did this once and could do it again. Even if it means standing in another local or general election, I'm up for that..
Makros is right behind some prime river front real estate, and that much closer to the dome.
You could setup some more bustrams between the two, I believe these and river front trams of some sort have been mooted for some time.
Also woolwich is on the dlr, now which is one stop from the ngreenwich tube (the dlr I mean)
Interested to know from AB what the transport split is currently for our fans?
I don't understand all the figures quoted , neither would I recognise a business plan if it hit me in the face.
I'm just a simple, but passionate Addick who has supported everything I possibly can over the past 23 years to help keep our Club in business.....like many others. And I'll continue to do so in any way I can.
Yes, The Valley is our home & I'm unsure at the moment how I'd feel if we had to move to another part of the Borough.
What I do know is that the future of Charlton Athletic is a huge concern - we don't need NLA's crystal balls to tell us that.
What bothers me is that it has taken Airman/Mark K's piece in yesterday's Voice , followed by extensive discussion on here with more information exchanged, to bring the current issue to our attention. And as a result, people like Prague have contributed their respected views & ideas regarding the next step for us to consider & hence some progress has been made towards this.
But, how many "average" Charlton fans will read the Voice and/or this & allied threads ? ie How many regulars at The Valley will be unaware of this issue ? A survey as mooted by seriously_red , I believe , in order to gauge opinions , is one option but fans will need to know the background facts before they're able to comment.
My question is, how to reach the thousands that SHOULD be made aware of what's possibly afoot ? A simple question from a simple Fan but one that I can't stop pondering tonight.
Worried of Dartford.
Oh and what Carly Burn said.
There's plenty of research into transport modes, including but not limited to the travel plans attached to the various planning applications. But the short answer is that most people come by car.
Ebbsfleet in not the centre of our support by numbers. That's probably Eltham/Sidcup. Most supporters live inside the M25, where the population is considerably more dense (read into that what you will!). I'd no more assume people would travel out than in, and I don't advocate leaving London/Greenwich/SE7 for that reason alone, although at least in Kent there would probably be parking!
Corporate hospitality would be a very hard sell indeed unless there was viable "Range Rover to stadium without getting wet" parking on site that came as part of the package.
The RBG is so anti-car and inadequate parking facilities would make the whole project untenable. Something at least the size of the West Stand car park plus maybe 50% would be needed. I don't see any indication of that in the RBG sketch of the site.
they left the Goldstone although of course it was ageing and not fit for purpose as a football stadium, in my opinion. I am NOT saying we should leave The Valley and neither do I particularly want to but if a sound business proposal were put forward then I would give it due consideration. I would however want the Club to own any such stadium, not rent etc.
But we made that choice, and worked on it over 15 years. The Valley brand isn't just based on 1990, but everything that followed it.
Trouble is your favourite band did reform, and at the O2, and like me, we did not get a look in did we.?
Difference is millions applied for that gig, not too sure about the numbers at the CAFC gig.
With or without a more comfy seat, and a prawn sandwich, in alleged comfy surroundings.
Football is an emotive, cultural, evocative sport, not a shopping experience.
You could change all sorts of things, the club colours, the name, and move. I think they call that branding.
As Martin Samuels talked yesterday on the Sunday supplement,
To use his example, based on Coventry,call yourself addicks and you could play anywhere.
Call yourself Charlton, and step outside SE7, and the issues get very abstract, or words similar.
Why not move Manchester United to London, after all most of the fans come from around here?
NYA may disagree with you. I have a hunch you are right. The prudent business owner will go out and research the issue (Or may have access to solid research which confirms your assertion, in which case he needn't reinvent the wheel). Anyway, you have put down the warning.
The arguments about where our core support lies and the emotional attachment to The Valley are all very valid, but the quality of the Peninsula location has been proven by the success of the O2 (which incidentally hasn't had many problems selling its corporate hospitality suites).
You could change all sorts of things, the club colours, the name, and move. I think they call that branding.
Ken
It would be called branding by people with a dangerous misunderstanding of marketing. Many of whom nevertheless have the word 'marketing' in their job title.
It is reasonable to suppose that the colour of the Cardiff City brand is blue. If you are the owner of the Cardiff City brand and you choose not to believe that this is important, you better have market research based evidence (i.e. ask the fans) before you go tampering with such things.
Good marketing is based on a thorough understanding of your customer's needs, wants, perceptions and beliefs. You only get this by asking them. Too many businesses don't bother, but instead make 'impertinent assumptions" a classic phrase used by David Lacey of the Guardian to describe the belief by our then directors that we'd all dutifully head off to Selhurst park to watch "Charlton Athletic".
The outlay on the O2 was close to a billion to get it to where it is today.
The idea that this new stadium would take business away to justify its multiuse from the O2, Olympic Park, ExCeL or even Wembley arena is pie in the sky for me