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.
Hah! they all use minicabs. And they will be sitting there running up waiting time of an hour or more too. Small price to pay for a client from whom you earn a million a year in fees. And you charge your own minicab to the company too, as you are far too "important" to risk anything happening to you on the tube home
Looking at the Peninsula site without the emotions...
For people who currently take the train to Charlton from London Bridge (and there are a sizeable number of them) taking the Jubilee Line instead of the NR train would be little different, indeed it would be better for me. Undoubtedly, this location would be an easier sell for the City based corporate market, people seem happier taking the tube rather than NR, but being in the PL is essential for this.
For people who take the train from the other direction, this would be a lot less convenient. The walk from Charlton or Westcombe Park will be significantly further, and hardly scenic. The Jubilee Line doesn't connect well with trains from Kent - HS1 for example goes to Stratford International, which is some distance from normal Stratford, even if you take the DLR. Buses to the peninsula can be quite slow, especially in the Woolwich Road or Bugsby Way.
For drivers, it's less convenient, as parking is far harder. For corporate clients in Kent, driving to the ground you'd get caught up in the tunnel traffic trams.
As for concerts, the number of outdoor events taking place is pretty small, and London has a host of alternative locations. It's easy to overestimate the amount of income that can be brought in this way.
Expanding the Valley could prove tricky and expensive now, so if we needed a larger stadium, then building a new one might be easier and more cost effective. Not an issue now...
There is plenty of car-parking in the vicinity of the O2 arena - presumably that would double as car-parking for this new stadium?
Why would AEG do that? Concert crowds arrive at the O2 early due to the facilities there, so you would have utter chaos with people getting in and out of the car parks stadium
There is plenty of car-parking in the vicinity of the O2 arena - presumably that would double as car-parking for this new stadium?
Why would AEG do that? Concert crowds arrive at the O2 early due to the facilities there, so you would have utter chaos with people getting in and out of the car parks stadium
Maybe because AEG could be fully engaged in the development of the stadium? Given they have built a virtual monopoly on indoor concerts/events in London at the O2, perhaps they'd care to do the same for the outdoor summer calendar (by my rough estimation, there are 20-25 big outdoor concerts in London each summer, currently spread across Wembley, Emirates, Finsbury Park etc.). Seems a nice synergy with football given it is redundant from May to August.
maybe, but I suspect the advantages of Olympic Park, which would be the main competitor for a Greenwich stadium, are far higher
Recall AEG tried to partner with Spurs to take over the Olympic Stadium but lost out. Spurs are now focused on a site over the road from White Hart Lane which would be of no interest to AEG (in my view).
This is not completely a bolt out of the blue ,I remember about a year ago a rumour was doing the rounds that we might share a Peninsula Stadium with the Spanners and that our board were entering discussions about the site with Greenwich Council as a defensive measure to ensure Millwall did not move into our turf.
My view of football finances changed when I was treated to corporate hospitality to watch Derby play West Ham at Pride Park about 10 years years ago.
I asked our host why the Rams had moved when after all the Baseball Ground had been modernised to become all seater.His reply was that season ticket income was a fraction of the corporate box income and that at Pride Park they could maximise this.He went on to say if they were promoted to the Prem then the income gained from these executive facilities would at least treble,I suspect that today the difference would be even more stark.I then realised that my ST money was peripheral to the finances of clubs in the top leagues.
In terms of Charlton I guess a lot depends on what sort of club we want.In terms of corporate facilities we do not have the geographical monopoly the likes of Derby have and we compete with the big four London clubs Arsenal ,Chelsea,Spurs and West Ham.Clearly they can charge a lot more than we can and even when we were in the Prem they would have been seen as more prestigious.The big clubs also provide a service for smaller companies,last year I went to one of the smaller lounges at Spurs and they had an ex player Paul Miller host our lounge.This season Crystal Palace and Fulham also offer Prem football,so would be more attractive to the casual corporate attendee.
The only way this could make sense for Charlton is if we want to return to the Prem and stay there for around ten years a bit like Fulham have done.If we fell to League One in a corporate stadium it would be awful.What is depressing is that the club cannot make money with a 10,000 plus attendance playing at the level which most of us have seen Charlton play at for most of our lives.
This is not completely a bolt out of the blue ,I remember about a year ago a rumour was doing the rounds that we might share a Peninsula Stadium with the Spanners and that our board were entering discussions about the site with Greenwich Council as a defensive measure to ensure Millwall did not move into our turf.
My view of football finances changed when I was treated to corporate hospitality to watch Derby play West Ham at Pride Park about 10 years years ago.
I asked our host why the Rams had moved when after all the Baseball Ground had been modernised to become all seater.His reply was that season ticket income was a fraction of the corporate box income and that at Pride Park they could maximise this.He went on to say if they were promoted to the Prem then the income gained from these executive facilities would at least treble,I suspect that today the difference would be even more stark.I then realised that my ST money was peripheral to the finances of clubs in the top leagues.
In terms of Charlton I guess a lot depends on what sort of club we want.In terms of corporate facilities we do not have the geographical monopoly the likes of Derby have and we compete with the big four London clubs Arsenal ,Chelsea,Spurs and West Ham.Clearly they can charge a lot more than we can and even when we were in the Prem they would have been seen as more prestigious.The big clubs also provide a service for smaller companies,last year I went to one of the smaller lounges at Spurs and they had an ex player Paul Miller host our lounge.This season Crystal Palace and Fulham also offer Prem football,so would be more attractive to the casual corporate attendee.
The only way this could make sense for Charlton is if we want to return to the Prem and stay there for around ten years a bit like Fulham have done.If we fell to League One in a corporate stadium it would be awful.What is depressing is that the club cannot make money with a 10,000 plus attendance playing at the level which most of us have seen Charlton play at for most of our lives.
A ground share with Millwall would make some considerable sense for both clubs in a pure commercial sense. Ground sharing has a bad rap in the UK because it has traditionally involved an owner-occupier (eg. Palace, West Ham) and a junior tenant - when both are equal partners (or near-equal) then there's no reason why it can't work as it does in Europe or the US. This thread is titled 'The Business Case' after all.
You make a good point about the likes of Derby having a local monopoly but you can't compare the quality of the companies one can attract in their area to ours (and thus the amount you can charge them).
Palace and Fulham have crappy stadiums but the latter at least has a decent location (not as good/convenient as the Peninsula though).
Answering an earlier question, my claim that we'd get bigger gates in a new stadium comes from what I've obvserved when pretty much every other club has moved to a new stadium. Gates go up.
There seem to be more posts on here highlighting cons rather than pros, coming up with new stadium problems but not interested in proposing solutions - quite natural for people to be defensive so for the sake of debate I'm happy to bat for the pros and the solutions.
1) I don't like the idea of being tenants. It hasn't worked terribly well for Coventry, or us in the past.
2) Although the site is reasonably well supported by public transport into North Greenwich, only 3 busses go to the actual site, the 422, 188 and 108. These busses also go through the already gridlocked area of Tunnel Avenue/Trafalgar Road junction. It seems unlikely that LT would be able to run more routes through that area. Also, I am concerned about how badly busy those busses would become if c. 20k fans are trying to get there.
I am by no means disabled, but living in Charlton, I can categorically say the site is NOT in walking distance of Charlton station. Unless you're prepared with walking boots and some Kendall Mint Cake!
1) I don't like the idea of being tenants. It hasn't worked terribly well for Coventry, or us in the past.
2) Although the site is reasonably well supported by public transport into North Greenwich, only 3 busses go to the actual site, the 422, 188 and 108. These busses also go through the already gridlocked area of Tunnel Avenue/Trafalgar Road junction. It seems unlikely that LT would be able to run more routes through that area. Also, I am concerned about how badly busy those busses would become if c. 20k fans are trying to get there.
I am by no means disabled, but living in Charlton, I can categorically say the site is NOT in walking distance of Charlton station. Unless you're prepared with walking boots and some Kendall Mint Cake!
1) I don't like the idea of being tenants. It hasn't worked terribly well for Coventry, or us in the past.
2) Although the site is reasonably well supported by public transport into North Greenwich, only 3 busses go to the actual site, the 422, 188 and 108. These busses also go through the already gridlocked area of Tunnel Avenue/Trafalgar Road junction. It seems unlikely that LT would be able to run more routes through that area. Also, I am concerned about how badly busy those busses would become if c. 20k fans are trying to get there.
I am by no means disabled, but living in Charlton, I can categorically say the site is NOT in walking distance of Charlton station. Unless you're prepared with walking boots and some Kendall Mint Cake!
I do this walk on a regular basis - it's hardly a massive distance.
So a stadium on the site is dependent on an extended DLR service. Even better the Woolwich rail line adds a branch line to North Greenwich on the route of the proposed DLR extension.
1) I don't like the idea of being tenants. It hasn't worked terribly well for Coventry, or us in the past.
2) Although the site is reasonably well supported by public transport into North Greenwich, only 3 busses go to the actual site, the 422, 188 and 108. These busses also go through the already gridlocked area of Tunnel Avenue/Trafalgar Road junction. It seems unlikely that LT would be able to run more routes through that area. Also, I am concerned about how badly busy those busses would become if c. 20k fans are trying to get there.
I am by no means disabled, but living in Charlton, I can categorically say the site is NOT in walking distance of Charlton station. Unless you're prepared with walking boots and some Kendall Mint Cake!
i am sure the 486, 472 and 161 go there as well..
The 472, 161, and 486 go to North Greenwich, true. As do the 129 and 132. But I was actually referring to the planned site of the stadium, which is the site of the old STC/Tunnel Refinery factories, which are on Tunnel Avenue. This is too far for the elderly or disabled to walk from North Greenwich.
1) I don't like the idea of being tenants. It hasn't worked terribly well for Coventry, or us in the past.
2) Although the site is reasonably well supported by public transport into North Greenwich, only 3 busses go to the actual site, the 422, 188 and 108. These busses also go through the already gridlocked area of Tunnel Avenue/Trafalgar Road junction. It seems unlikely that LT would be able to run more routes through that area. Also, I am concerned about how badly busy those busses would become if c. 20k fans are trying to get there.
I am by no means disabled, but living in Charlton, I can categorically say the site is NOT in walking distance of Charlton station. Unless you're prepared with walking boots and some Kendall Mint Cake!
I do this walk on a regular basis - it's hardly a massive distance.
It all depends on age and fitness.
I agree with you for a fit young bloke but for elderly fans it's a trek.
I would point out Coventry and where they are. They gave up their old Stadium and therefore an asset for Ricoh and having to pay rent and rates and they are now broke. With gates of 24,00 we do not need to move.
Answering an earlier question, my claim that we'd get bigger gates in a new stadium comes from what I've obvserved when pretty much every other club has moved to a new stadium. Gates go up.
There seem to be more posts on here highlighting cons rather than pros, coming up with new stadium problems but not interested in proposing solutions - quite natural for people to be defensive so for the sake of debate I'm happy to bat for the pros and the solutions.
I think that is an unfortunate comment. This debate was being conducted in a civil and grown up tone of voice. You didn't need to add that second paragraph. And I think New York Addick has already made a number of detailed arguments pro. Far more than your one sweeping statement, "new ground, gates go up". Ricoh is a good example to show that is not always true.
Nor do you define what the 'solution' is we are looking for. However let us assume that the 'problem' is that the club cannot earn enough match day revenue from The Valley, and that a new stadium would provide such revenue. We have learnt from the interesting comment about Pride Park, above, was that the financial success is not about increased capacity of us fans, but increased capacity for corporate entertainment. So my solution is a new development plan for the Valley which focuses first and foremost on corporate capacity. Its possible as Guinness Addick mentioned that the east stand plan has gone for a burton, but that doesnt mean a new plan can't be created. Fill in the corners with two giant corporate areas for example.
Finally let me ask you a question about the other clubs which built new stadia. Thinking about the ground they replaced, which of them could be said to be as good as the Valley is today? (Burnden, Boothferry, Ayresome, Filbert Street, Highfield Road, the old grounds at Southampton, Stoke..the Vetch Field (!). )
"Good" meaning a combination of capacity, comfort, sight lines, corporate facilities, public transport.
I'm curious about your answer. And if you struggle to answer maybe that also tells you why so few people are making the argument pro.
If we were talking about the Valley 1985, or even 1992, you might have more pros. But the Valley 2013 is one of the best stadia in this league, as well as being better than several in the FAPL, starting with that tip in SE26.
The peninsula is water locked on 3 sides. Tunnels would provide ways out and as a long term plan, one could link up with the Oxcam silicon valley? Plus solar powered water buses & taxis are viable options.
I think we will have moved by 2025 to the Greenwich Penisular. I think the Valley will be redeveloped with one block of 40 affordable flats and 5 with 40 executive apartments. I think the ground will be part owed by CAFCs new owners, the council and an entertainment company. I think there will be an agreesive marketing campaign which will see the 40,000 stadium sell 25,000 Season tickets along with a number of walk-ups enjoyng the benefits of their 'Greenwich Penisular Pass' giving cheap access to all events on the penisular.
A move to the peninsula could work. Parking has been raised as an issue. This could be addressed, either by car parking near the ground or under the ground (as is the case at Monaco). Alternatively, those involved in such a move could look at alternatives to fans driving and parking. Arsenal have moved and had a near 50% increase in stadium capacity despite a fall from ~30% to ~10% in terms of fans driving to the ground. A further alternative could see fans park securely in an area where land is less expensive and get a boat to the ground (park and sail). In any event, even if we stay at The Valley, it seems likely that it will become progressively harder to park and what parking there is will be become more expensive.
I agree with those that say hospitality revenue will increase at the peninsula. The proximity to the underground will increase this revenue stream together with additional features that could be incorporated in a new stadium. Some parking will be available for those unwilling to travel by public transport and luxury private boats could run from central London or Canary Wharf (this is only likely to be viable in the EPL).
The impact of a move to the peninsula to those who travel by public transport is mixed. For those who travel to The Valley from North of the Thames, West of London or South West London their journey becomes quicker, but then most Charlton fans don't live in these areas. Clearly for some of those travelling from Kent or South East London by train to the ground it would be desirable to establish a better link between the railway and any new ground than the existing bus routes.
A move to the peninsula if done on the terms that suit the club and fans could possibly work. However, it is easy to see the potential Coventry type scenario or even the sale of the ground with no new ground been built.
A move to Ebbsfleet could not successfully work as things stand.
The parking thing doesn't hold much sway with me. I know when I ever drive I pay my fiver and park in the disused ground off Victoria way. How long before that and other places like it that people use for parking are handed over to the property developers. Not long ill wager.
Our situation would be akin to Man City or Coventry - both were previously playing at perfectly adequate relatively modern stadia hemmed in by housing, but an opportunity arose to move to a purpose-built new one in what appeared an advantageous manner (Man City also lease their stadium by the way). West Ham would arguably fall into this category too.
Most of the others you mention above moved out of necessity because their stadia were decrepit - Charlton's situation would thus be more similar to Man City/Coventry/West Ham given I would consider The Valley to be 'perfectly adequate', albeit falling short of modern design/construction standards.
I don't see any reason why leasing a stadium is necessarily worse than owning one in the same way as renting a home can make more sense for some than owning. Indeed one of the arguments regularly put forward to explain Charlton's inability to be profitable at Championship level is the running costs of The Valley. It is worth noting that amongst others, Hull and Swansea also lease their stadia.
I think that one is doing the topic a disservice by focusing disproportionately on Coventry, and not on other similar situations that worked out far more positively.
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, althoughat least in Kent there would probably be parking!
The Trust asked for the first two digits of the fans post code and you would be surprised at the distribution... I won't quote numbers off the top of my head but the significant answers were SE, DA, BR, TN and ME plus various codes in Kent, Essex and Surrey... we did this to feed supporter details back to branches if the fans stated they were interested. Exact mid point needs either the whole database or a way of eliminating bias but the most convenient* transport point by car would be near M25 / A2/ A20 as in minimum cumulative miles for all... by train it all depends.
NB I am not advocating any such move simply because the Valley does a job right now and there is potential there to expand IMHO
Quoting Arsenal as retaining attendances on moving to a new stadium is totally irrelevant as they have around 40,000 on the waiting list for season tickets.
This a staggering figure although it is thought only about 65% take up when given the opportunity.
I haven't had chance to read much of this thread but don't see how there can be much of a business case in terms of increasing revenues or profits, it looks as though this is all about settling debts. Certainly with pretty much all of our playing staff to be available for free in the summer, Charlton aren't in possession of much other than The Valley in terms of assets which could be used to settle our debts and with us making consistent operating losses, there's no real prospect of us settling them on a gradual repayment basis either. As I understand it, the majority of our debt is relatively 'friendly' insomuch as it's owed to directors or ex-directors who have no interest in winding us up if we don't pay (unlike the day when we can't pay our tax bill) therefore what this really serves to do is pay back these individuals. If (and it's a big IF), there is substance to this, then it does leave me wondering whether the owners did have a back-up plan all along. Try and get promoted to the Premier League by being shrewd in player acquisition and development and if that fails (or the funding dries up) then asset strip the club.
The analogy for me is that I have accumulated a massive debt but own my house outright. I can sell my house and pay off my debt, maybe even have a few quid left over but then I have to rent somewhere else to live and not only do my monthly outgoings go up but my landlord won't let me paint the hallway or hang a picture, they're screwing me around on the security deposit and they keep letting other people in to look around.
As a fan experience, the peninsular may just be fine, maybe an improvement, who knows? As a commercial opportunity, you may even see a rise in hospitality revenues and the like on the peninsular (but we probably wouldn't be the beneficiaries as I just can't see how the deal stacks up for us to own it). For me personally, I think it puts the club on a weaker footing financially and puts another degree of separation between me and the club I loved, the irrational feeling that Charlton is in some way special and not like other clubs stems from our fight and ultimate return to The Valley for a lot of fans my age, from watching it grow and the pride in how we got there. Once that's gone, I'm going to take a lot more convincing to trot over to the peninsular to watch home form like we've endured for the majority of the last 10 years or so.
Our situation would be akin to Man City or Coventry - both were previously playing at perfectly adequate relatively modern stadia hemmed in by housing, but an opportunity arose to move to a purpose-built new one in what appeared an advantageous manner (Man City also lease their stadium by the way). West Ham would arguably fall into this category too.
Most of the others you mention above moved out of necessity because their stadia were decrepit - Charlton's situation would thus be more similar to Man City/Coventry/West Ham given I would consider The Valley to be 'perfectly adequate', albeit falling short of modern design/construction standards.
I don't see any reason why leasing a stadium is necessarily worse than owning one in the same way as renting a home can make more sense for some than owning. Indeed one of the arguments regularly put forward to explain Charlton's inability to be profitable at Championship level is the running costs of The Valley. It is worth noting that amongst others, Hull and Swansea also lease their stadia.
I think that one is doing the topic a disservice by focusing disproportionately on Coventry, and not on other similar situations that worked out far more positively.
The leasing of a new stadium might work BUT it depends on how much the rent would be, who is the landlord and the terms of the lease. I seem to recall that Man City's rent was to some degree geared to turnover ie low basic rent but coupled with a percentage of ticket sales over a certain trigger point. If properly done we would pay more if in the premiership (higher crowds) or less in league 1 (lower crowds).
Prague, my second comment was to justify why for debate's sake I'll take the minority viewpoint. I agree with you The Valley is a cracking ground. Until the weekend I had no thought in my mind for us to leave. But someone, somewhere, decided a stadium might be viable and their idea was published. Granted, it didn't mention Charlton as an owner/tenant but I'm trying to come up with reasons why it could be a good idea and how it could work for Charlton. I agree NYA is arguing an excellent case - for the sake of debate he looked like he could do with a few more backing his corner.
An example of a problem that's been raised about a new stadium on the proposed site - people can't get there. I've seen lots of people say that's a reason not to move, but no one coming up with a solution that would tackle the problem (apart from laying on a few more buses). Okay it was off the top of my head, but I've come up with a solution but haven't seen anyone else attempt (or want) to do so, and I picked up on it.
As for The Valley generating poor corporate revenue, to be honest I suspect that comes down to location. Yes, in SE7 the club could possibly squeeze more money out of local firms, but in North Greenwich and as part of a big project I'd have to predict our chances would be way better. I'm not convinced that 'build it and they will come' applies to SE7. Possible measures could be our corporate income in the Premier League years - when the club was peaking, roughly how much corporate business were we having to turn away? As for any corporate business we're not capitalising on now, is this due to a shortage of corporate capacity or are we paying the opportunity cost of the existing facilities not being up to scratch? Airman might have a good feel for this.
Coventry, agree they're an exception, but that's why I said pretty much every club.
Comments
For people who currently take the train to Charlton from London Bridge (and there are a sizeable number of them) taking the Jubilee Line instead of the NR train would be little different, indeed it would be better for me. Undoubtedly, this location would be an easier sell for the City based corporate market, people seem happier taking the tube rather than NR, but being in the PL is essential for this.
For people who take the train from the other direction, this would be a lot less convenient. The walk from Charlton or Westcombe Park will be significantly further, and hardly scenic. The Jubilee Line doesn't connect well with trains from Kent - HS1 for example goes to Stratford International, which is some distance from normal Stratford, even if you take the DLR. Buses to the peninsula can be quite slow, especially in the Woolwich Road or Bugsby Way.
For drivers, it's less convenient, as parking is far harder. For corporate clients in Kent, driving to the ground you'd get caught up in the tunnel traffic trams.
As for concerts, the number of outdoor events taking place is pretty small, and London has a host of alternative locations. It's easy to overestimate the amount of income that can be brought in this way.
Expanding the Valley could prove tricky and expensive now, so if we needed a larger stadium, then building a new one might be easier and more cost effective. Not an issue now...
This is not completely a bolt out of the blue ,I remember about a year ago a rumour was doing the rounds that we might share a Peninsula Stadium with the Spanners and that our board were entering discussions about the site with Greenwich Council as a defensive measure to ensure Millwall did not move into our turf.
My view of football finances changed when I was treated to corporate hospitality to watch Derby play West Ham at Pride Park about 10 years years ago.
I asked our host why the Rams had moved when after all the Baseball Ground had been modernised to become all seater.His reply was that season ticket income was a fraction of the corporate box income and that at Pride Park they could maximise this.He went on to say if they were promoted to the Prem then the income gained from these executive facilities would at least treble,I suspect that today the difference would be even more stark.I then realised that my ST money was peripheral to the finances of clubs in the top leagues.
In terms of Charlton I guess a lot depends on what sort of club we want.In terms of corporate facilities we do not have the geographical monopoly the likes of Derby have and we compete with the big four London clubs Arsenal ,Chelsea,Spurs and West Ham.Clearly they can charge a lot more than we can and even when we were in the Prem they would have been seen as more prestigious.The big clubs also provide a service for smaller companies,last year I went to one of the smaller lounges at Spurs and they had an ex player Paul Miller host our lounge.This season Crystal Palace and Fulham also offer Prem football,so would be more attractive to the casual corporate attendee.
The only way this could make sense for Charlton is if we want to return to the Prem and stay there for around ten years a bit like Fulham have done.If we fell to League One in a corporate stadium it would be awful.What is depressing is that the club cannot make money with a 10,000 plus attendance playing at the level which most of us have seen Charlton play at for most of our lives.
You make a good point about the likes of Derby having a local monopoly but you can't compare the quality of the companies one can attract in their area to ours (and thus the amount you can charge them).
Palace and Fulham have crappy stadiums but the latter at least has a decent location (not as good/convenient as the Peninsula though).
There seem to be more posts on here highlighting cons rather than pros, coming up with new stadium problems but not interested in proposing solutions - quite natural for people to be defensive so for the sake of debate I'm happy to bat for the pros and the solutions.
1) I don't like the idea of being tenants. It hasn't worked terribly well for Coventry, or us in the past.
2) Although the site is reasonably well supported by public transport into North Greenwich, only 3 busses go to the actual site, the 422, 188 and 108. These busses also go through the already gridlocked area of Tunnel Avenue/Trafalgar Road junction. It seems unlikely that LT would be able to run more routes through that area. Also, I am concerned about how badly busy those busses would become if c. 20k fans are trying to get there.
I am by no means disabled, but living in Charlton, I can categorically say the site is NOT in walking distance of Charlton station. Unless you're prepared with walking boots and some Kendall Mint Cake!
The 472, 161, and 486 go to North Greenwich, true. As do the 129 and 132. But I was actually referring to the planned site of the stadium, which is the site of the old STC/Tunnel Refinery factories, which are on Tunnel Avenue. This is too far for the elderly or disabled to walk from North Greenwich.
I agree with you for a fit young bloke but for elderly fans it's a trek.
Nor do you define what the 'solution' is we are looking for. However let us assume that the 'problem' is that the club cannot earn enough match day revenue from The Valley, and that a new stadium would provide such revenue. We have learnt from the interesting comment about Pride Park, above, was that the financial success is not about increased capacity of us fans, but increased capacity for corporate entertainment. So my solution is a new development plan for the Valley which focuses first and foremost on corporate capacity. Its possible as Guinness Addick mentioned that the east stand plan has gone for a burton, but that doesnt mean a new plan can't be created. Fill in the corners with two giant corporate areas for example.
Finally let me ask you a question about the other clubs which built new stadia. Thinking about the ground they replaced, which of them could be said to be as good as the Valley is today? (Burnden, Boothferry, Ayresome, Filbert Street, Highfield Road, the old grounds at Southampton, Stoke..the Vetch Field (!). )
"Good" meaning a combination of capacity, comfort, sight lines, corporate facilities, public transport.
I'm curious about your answer. And if you struggle to answer maybe that also tells you why so few people are making the argument pro.
If we were talking about the Valley 1985, or even 1992, you might have more pros. But the Valley 2013 is one of the best stadia in this league, as well as being better than several in the FAPL, starting with that tip in SE26.
I know I will still be a season ticket holder.
A move to the peninsula could work. Parking has been raised as an issue. This could be addressed, either by car parking near the ground or under the ground (as is the case at Monaco). Alternatively, those involved in such a move could look at alternatives to fans driving and parking. Arsenal have moved and had a near 50% increase in stadium capacity despite a fall from ~30% to ~10% in terms of fans driving to the ground. A further alternative could see fans park securely in an area where land is less expensive and get a boat to the ground (park and sail). In any event, even if we stay at The Valley, it seems likely that it will become progressively harder to park and what parking there is will be become more expensive.
I agree with those that say hospitality revenue will increase at the peninsula. The proximity to the underground will increase this revenue stream together with additional features that could be incorporated in a new stadium. Some parking will be available for those unwilling to travel by public transport and luxury private boats could run from central London or Canary Wharf (this is only likely to be viable in the EPL).
The impact of a move to the peninsula to those who travel by public transport is mixed. For those who travel to The Valley from North of the Thames, West of London or South West London their journey becomes quicker, but then most Charlton fans don't live in these areas. Clearly for some of those travelling from Kent or South East London by train to the ground it would be desirable to establish a better link between the railway and any new ground than the existing bus routes.
A move to the peninsula if done on the terms that suit the club and fans could possibly work. However, it is easy to see the potential Coventry type scenario or even the sale of the ground with no new ground been built.
A move to Ebbsfleet could not successfully work as things stand.
Most of the others you mention above moved out of necessity because their stadia were decrepit - Charlton's situation would thus be more similar to Man City/Coventry/West Ham given I would consider The Valley to be 'perfectly adequate', albeit falling short of modern design/construction standards.
I don't see any reason why leasing a stadium is necessarily worse than owning one in the same way as renting a home can make more sense for some than owning. Indeed one of the arguments regularly put forward to explain Charlton's inability to be profitable at Championship level is the running costs of The Valley. It is worth noting that amongst others, Hull and Swansea also lease their stadia.
I think that one is doing the topic a disservice by focusing disproportionately on Coventry, and not on other similar situations that worked out far more positively.
Exact mid point needs either the whole database or a way of eliminating bias but the most convenient* transport point by car would be near M25 / A2/ A20 as in minimum cumulative miles for all... by train it all depends.
NB I am not advocating any such move simply because the Valley does a job right now and there is potential there to expand IMHO
This a staggering figure although it is thought only about 65% take up when given the opportunity.
The analogy for me is that I have accumulated a massive debt but own my house outright. I can sell my house and pay off my debt, maybe even have a few quid left over but then I have to rent somewhere else to live and not only do my monthly outgoings go up but my landlord won't let me paint the hallway or hang a picture, they're screwing me around on the security deposit and they keep letting other people in to look around.
As a fan experience, the peninsular may just be fine, maybe an improvement, who knows? As a commercial opportunity, you may even see a rise in hospitality revenues and the like on the peninsular (but we probably wouldn't be the beneficiaries as I just can't see how the deal stacks up for us to own it). For me personally, I think it puts the club on a weaker footing financially and puts another degree of separation between me and the club I loved, the irrational feeling that Charlton is in some way special and not like other clubs stems from our fight and ultimate return to The Valley for a lot of fans my age, from watching it grow and the pride in how we got there. Once that's gone, I'm going to take a lot more convincing to trot over to the peninsular to watch home form like we've endured for the majority of the last 10 years or so.
The leasing of a new stadium might work BUT it depends on how much the rent would be, who is the landlord and the terms of the lease. I seem to recall that Man City's rent was to some degree geared to turnover ie low basic rent but coupled with a percentage of ticket sales over a certain trigger point. If properly done we would pay more if in the premiership (higher crowds) or less in league 1 (lower crowds).
An example of a problem that's been raised about a new stadium on the proposed site - people can't get there. I've seen lots of people say that's a reason not to move, but no one coming up with a solution that would tackle the problem (apart from laying on a few more buses). Okay it was off the top of my head, but I've come up with a solution but haven't seen anyone else attempt (or want) to do so, and I picked up on it.
As for The Valley generating poor corporate revenue, to be honest I suspect that comes down to location. Yes, in SE7 the club could possibly squeeze more money out of local firms, but in North Greenwich and as part of a big project I'd have to predict our chances would be way better. I'm not convinced that 'build it and they will come' applies to SE7. Possible measures could be our corporate income in the Premier League years - when the club was peaking, roughly how much corporate business were we having to turn away? As for any corporate business we're not capitalising on now, is this due to a shortage of corporate capacity or are we paying the opportunity cost of the existing facilities not being up to scratch? Airman might have a good feel for this.
Coventry, agree they're an exception, but that's why I said pretty much every club.
Good debate!