Valley Move, is it a bad thing ?
But a move to Greenwich peninsula (Morden wharf) with a modern 30/35k stadium like Brighton's with bars and restaurants etc access from North Greenwich underground and by the river may be a positive thing.
Comments
-
No thank you.12
-
The Valley is the only home for me, no stadium beats it. Bugle, caf and football.13
-
^^^ pub.12
-
Millwall are moving in as well4
-
It's not an option while we are in the lower leagues . If we did manage to get back to the Premier League ( sorry don't laugh) then I think it has to be on the cards.0
-
If Roland sells the club, but keeps the ground, it's very difficult knowing what the best course of action is.0
-
No, until it is proved to (& accepted by) the majority of the support as being - at the very least - probably the correct thing to do.
0 -
Like everything else in life. It depends on circumstances.8
-
I agree not likely in League 1, but It's got to be an option .0
-
If it means RD moving out then its a good thing- no doubts.
In any other situation(as long as it benefits CAFC), its a good thing too, with no doubts either.
To me, its a no-brainer. You cant be sentimental in Football, you have to keep moving forwards- because all other clubs are trying to.
Its a huge opportunity - and its right on our bleedin doorstep !
Or stay at The Valley, stay Lidl Ol Charlton, stay watching Aldershot and Accrington at home with the other dwindling 4 thousand, selling all youth that are any good to Palace and prob Millwall.
2 - Sponsored links:
-
This is my greatest fear over any decision Duchatelet makes to sell. The thought of that vampire permanently leeching from Charlton's dismembered body is too awful to contemplate... but I wouldn't put it past him.Mackle said:If Roland sells the club, but keeps the ground, it's very difficult knowing what the best course of action is.
4 -
Is that the majority of the support that's bought a season ticket for the Valley or the majority of the support including those are are not going to the Valley ?SheffieldRed said:
No, until it is proved to (& accepted by) the majority of the support as being - at the very least - probably the correct thing to do.0 -
I would always be against a move from the Valley as it is our home, it has history and it is not a run down old stadium at all.
The only reason I could see myself ever accepting a move to a new stadium as being a good thing is if it was to a stadium of 40 or 50k capacity that would boost us to a similar level as the likes of Spurs, which would only happen if we have another period of being an established top tier club.5 -
We could sustain ourselves as a big club in the PL with the stadium we've got.The_President said:If it means RD moving out then its a good thing- no doubts.
In any other situation, its a good thing too, with no doubts either.
To me, its a no-brainer. You cant be sentimental in Football, you have to keep moving forwards- because all other clubs are trying to.
Its a huge opportunity - and its right on our bleedin doorstep !
Or stay at The Valley, stay Lidl Ol Charlton, stay watching Aldershot and Accrington at home with the other dwindling 4 thousand, selling all youth that are any good to Palace and prob Millwall.
The Brittania holds 27,000 and Stoke are a well established premier league club.
The only situation I'd be happy about moving in is if we were aiming for consistent top 10 finishes and planning applications for 40k at The Valley had been turned down.5 -
The Valley is an integral part of what it is to be Charlton. We don't need a larger stadium. We don't need restaurants /hotels near by. We don't need better transport links.3
-
We need better transport links. Coming from Plumstead is shit. And SE rail is shit.maddferrett said:The Valley is an integral part of what it is to be Charlton. We don't need a larger stadium. We don't need restaurants /hotels near by. We don't need better transport links.
1 -
Clubs only move to new grounds because
1) They have an old ground, which can't be modernised (e.g. Brentford)
2) Their ground is too small (or large). Arsenal is the main example of this, with Spurs and Chelsea following (albeit on the same site)
3) Their ground is no good for commercial revenue - this is more of a problem for Everton at Goodison than the 40k capacity
I can't see the Valley falling into any of their categories. 27k is a perfectly acceptable capacity for us, and if necessary it can be slightly expanded and additional exec boxes etc added.
9 -
The Valley is lovely but tatty and needs a major refurbishment .. really time to move out, sell the land for housing and invest in a new home .. a move to a brand spanking new all purpose stadium is just what CAFC needs .. BUT .. with all the London premier clubs moving into new 55/60,000+ seated stadia, will even a 35,000 seater suit our long term needs ? .. I digress, but will we ever again hope to compete with the mega rich big boys ?1
-
The transport links we have aren't all that bad it's just the companies running them are shit.
Plumstead station to Charlton is around 10 minutes is it? Trains in the week run every 10 minutes.
So let's just cancel them in home matchdays.
I'd rather be at the Valley if at all possible, just sitting in the pilot looking out over the peninsula and it's a pretty soulless place. Although the park looks nice in the sun.3 -
I've previously said it's not the end of the world to me. It's done wonders for Brighton and the whole Greenwich peninsula is bloody awesome. An incredible backdrop.
That said - there are plans for something like 15,000 new homes there in the next 10 years so it might help get fans through the door too - or just cause absolute traffic chaos.
I support Charlton - wherever that may be.
3 - Sponsored links:
-
And this was done on the deficit spending of Peter Coates. I think it was 2-3 years back that Stoke were one of the clubs with the highest wages:turnover ratios. Knowing Mark Hughes' tendencies, I doubt that's changed much. Same can be said of Bournemouth, Watford, and previously QPR, Bolton, Blackburn, Portsmouth, etc. etc.Leeds_Addick said:
We could sustain ourselves as a big club in the PL with the stadium we've got.The_President said:If it means RD moving out then its a good thing- no doubts.
In any other situation, its a good thing too, with no doubts either.
To me, its a no-brainer. You cant be sentimental in Football, you have to keep moving forwards- because all other clubs are trying to.
Its a huge opportunity - and its right on our bleedin doorstep !
Or stay at The Valley, stay Lidl Ol Charlton, stay watching Aldershot and Accrington at home with the other dwindling 4 thousand, selling all youth that are any good to Palace and prob Millwall.
The Brittania holds 27,000 and Stoke are a well established premier league club.
The only situation I'd be happy about moving in is if we were aiming for consistent top 10 finishes and planning applications for 40k at The Valley had been turned down.
El Presidente and I had a good discussion on this a couple weeks back. All-in-all I'm against moving, mostly because I just don't see the upside as being all that huge. I think you could expand The Valley by another 5k seats, which would put us in the 32k realm. Qualms with SE rail et al aside, we could do with better transport links, which would certainly help fill the ground.
I would say that with teams like Bournemouth, QPR, Stoke etc. in the Prem, and Leeds, Forest, Villa, etc. in the second tier, there is no guarantee that a 27k or even a 32k or 35k seater stadium will make us Premier League mainstays. The money now is in partnerships and overseas sponsors/investors/TV money. All of this is why I see it as a bit of a moot point.
A new stadium isn't really going to be the thing to get us to the Premier League, and it's not all that likely it'd keep us there (keeping in mind looking five years out is a fool's errand the way things in football are).
The best way for us to get to, and stay in, the top flightis years of good infrastructure work, shrewd investment in youth players, good, consistent scouting, employing some of the up-and-coming best behind the scenes and in key footballing roles such as coaches, and a long, patient movement toward breaking even and an overall fiscally responsible way of running the cluba rich man buying us and investing loads in deficit spending to get us up to the Premier League.0 -
Have to say - i'm all for a new ground, provided it was 40,000 +. The Valley will always have its place in Charlton and footballing history, but personally, I think we need a new ground in order to compete. Another couple of 'extensions' to the current stadium will make it look awkward. Transport and parking is poor. I regularly go to Derby's Pride Park (now called iPro) Stadium. It's got lot's of atmosphere, it's in a great location and is nice to look at. As is Brighton's ground.2
-
All the big London PL clubs have much bigger fan bases than us. Think of the number of fake replica shirts sold in markets, the number of casual fans they have, the season ticket waiting listsLincsaddick said:The Valley is lovely but tatty and needs a major refurbishment .. really time to move out, sell the land for housing and invest in a new home .. a move to a brand spanking new all purpose stadium is just what CAFC needs .. BUT .. with all the London premier clubs moving into new 55/60,000+ seated stadia, will even a 35,000 seater suit our long term needs ? .. I digress, but will we ever again hope to compete with the mega rich big boys ?
This isn't knocking Valley Express, but I doubt any of the big PL London teams run cheap coaches to bring fans in, or need to.1 -
I get that "the Valley is our home,our history etc" it is. But so was Upton Park to West Ham and look what they are getting (funded by us of course). The Greenwich peninsula is a hub of entertainment and a great place to be, the Valley is hidden away with poor transport links , I just think it's something that new owners with great vision and deep pockets could look into1
-
A lot of the new grounds are the complete opposite to that though.braydex said:Have to say - i'm all for a new ground, provided it was 40,000 +. The Valley will always have its place in Charlton and footballing history, but personally, I think we need a new ground in order to compete. Another couple of 'extensions' to the current stadium will make it look awkward. Transport and parking is poor. I regularly go to Derby's Pride Park (now called iPro) Stadium. It's got lot's of atmosphere, it's in a great location and is nice to look at. As is Brighton's ground.
The Reebok (Macron) stadium is a good example of a new ground that lacks any sort of atmosphere. The emirates is another that lacks atmosphere but is obviously a fantastic structure that has done wonders for Arsenals commercial avenues.
What I fear the most is that by moving we'd end up with a ground with no atmosphere.
Or we may end up with a ground like Hull City's which I have to say I thought was brilliant and showed me that it could be done correctly.0 -
Agree, but if done correctly it could work0
-
Not a particularly accurate assessment there!! Our strategy is to break-even - no more.SDAddick said:
And this was done on the deficit spending of Peter Coates. I think it was 2-3 years back that Stoke were one of the clubs with the highest wages:turnover ratios. Knowing Mark Hughes' tendencies, I doubt that's changed much. Same can be said of Bournemouth, Watford, and previously QPR, Bolton, Blackburn, Portsmouth, etc. etc.Leeds_Addick said:
We could sustain ourselves as a big club in the PL with the stadium we've got.The_President said:If it means RD moving out then its a good thing- no doubts.
In any other situation, its a good thing too, with no doubts either.
To me, its a no-brainer. You cant be sentimental in Football, you have to keep moving forwards- because all other clubs are trying to.
Its a huge opportunity - and its right on our bleedin doorstep !
Or stay at The Valley, stay Lidl Ol Charlton, stay watching Aldershot and Accrington at home with the other dwindling 4 thousand, selling all youth that are any good to Palace and prob Millwall.
The Brittania holds 27,000 and Stoke are a well established premier league club.
The only situation I'd be happy about moving in is if we were aiming for consistent top 10 finishes and planning applications for 40k at The Valley had been turned down.
El Presidente and I had a good discussion on this a couple weeks back. All-in-all I'm against moving, mostly because I just don't see the upside as being all that huge. I think you could expand The Valley by another 5k seats, which would put us in the 32k realm. Qualms with SE rail et al aside, we could do with better transport links, which would certainly help fill the ground.
I would say that with teams like Bournemouth, QPR, Stoke etc. in the Prem, and Leeds, Forest, Villa, etc. in the second tier, there is no guarantee that a 27k or even a 32k or 35k seater stadium will make us Premier League mainstays. The money now is in partnerships and overseas sponsors/investors/TV money. All of this is why I see it as a bit of a moot point.
A new stadium isn't really going to be the thing to get us to the Premier League, and it's not all that likely it'd keep us there (keeping in mind looking five years out is a fool's errand the way things in football are).
The best way for us to get to, and stay in, the top flightis years of good infrastructure work, shrewd investment in youth players, good, consistent scouting, employing some of the up-and-coming best behind the scenes and in key footballing roles such as coaches, and a long, patient movement toward breaking even and an overall fiscally responsible way of running the cluba rich man buying us and investing loads in deficit spending to get us up to the Premier League.
Stoke City
2013-14 Turnover 14th - Wage Bill 16th - Profit £3m
2014-15 Turnover 16th - Wage Bill 16th - Profit £5m
Net 'friendly debt' £33m - reducing. Ground & Training Ground - owned outright - no mortgages.
The big loss in 2012-13 was to pay for the new Cat 1 training ground.
1 -
Plumstead to Valley by bus half hour, by train 15 minutes (station to station), cycling 15 minutes and walking about an hour.SDAddick said:
We need better transport links. Coming from Plumstead is shit. And SE rail is shit.maddferrett said:The Valley is an integral part of what it is to be Charlton. We don't need a larger stadium. We don't need restaurants /hotels near by. We don't need better transport links.
Easy journey however you go.4 -
I can't see anyone being so stupid as to buy the club and not the ground.Missed It said:
This is my greatest fear over any decision Duchatelet makes to sell. The thought of that vampire permanently leeching from Charlton's dismembered body is too awful to contemplate... but I wouldn't put it past him.Mackle said:If Roland sells the club, but keeps the ground, it's very difficult knowing what the best course of action is.
1 -
Bad move now, in the Premiership (lol) not so much. Always prefer to redevelop over moving though - keep some of the history.
That 40k stadium sketch from a while back is all we'd ever need, realistically. I don't see why we'd want to move as fans - sure, club could make some more money on the Peninsula possibly in that situation.2
