Well if 65 million is what his after then we are screwed. No one will pay that even if we do get promoted! Feeling despondent!
If we get promoted, Roland will want nearer £90M.
I get the feeling that if the owner received a bid of £90m he would be convinced that there is someone out there who would match his imagination with a bid of £120m.
This is exactly what we, or rather those with an interest in buying the club, are dealing with.
We really don't want owners who see Charlton as a financial transaction - it is something into which they have to invest love and passion if they want a return.
How many of the foreign investors into football do it because they love the clubs?
Wigan, to take a recent example have now been taken over by Hong Kong investors, I doubt they're doing it because they love the club or town.
I have no idea of the answer to this question, I am sure someone will be able to answer it.
The common assumption, which I am sure is correct, is that there is next to chance of getting planning permission to build residential/commercial developments on the site of the Valley and/or Sparrows Lane.
How would the council etc veiw a change of use if there was no occupation of either site? A football ground with no football team is hardly a asset of community value.
All other things being equal the Valley would be seen as a good opportunity for more social and commercial housing in Greenwich, which would be part of their overall plan.
But, and it is a big but ,politically it would be very inadvisable. Other local residents may not want more housing (although some would no doubt prefer this to 25+ home games a season.
Local businesses wouldn't be happy, the borough would lose an employer and a company that brings a lot of "customers" into the borough.
Any planning application would be fought and the shadow of the Valley Party would loom large.
The football club and Trust as seen as important benefits to the area.
Everything except the social housing element is only true while there is a football club there, or a realistic chance of a football club being there in the very near future. How long would it take to not be be true?
Would be my concern too. If he's in it for the long game, how long before the ground deteriorates to the extent that redevelopment is seen as a better option? Even more if there were to be a couple of 'mysterious' fires that would speed things along (didn't something similar happen to an adjoining property when WHL was being redeveloped?)
We really don't want owners who see Charlton as a financial transaction - it is something into which they have to invest love and passion if they want a return.
How many of the foreign investors into football do it because they love the clubs?
Wigan, to take a recent example have now been taken over by Hong Kong investors, I doubt they're doing it because they love the club or town.
Exactly. Unless we can find a Charlton fan with a spare 80million+ then we are not getting taken over by someone who is doing it out of the kindness of their heart.
I have no idea of the answer to this question, I am sure someone will be able to answer it.
The common assumption, which I am sure is correct, is that there is next to chance of getting planning permission to build residential/commercial developments on the site of the Valley and/or Sparrows Lane.
How would the council etc veiw a change of use if there was no occupation of either site? A football ground with no football team is hardly a asset of community value.
All other things being equal the Valley would be seen as a good opportunity for more social and commercial housing in Greenwich, which would be part of their overall plan.
But, and it is a big but ,politically it would be very inadvisable. Other local residents may not want more housing (although some would no doubt prefer this to 25+ home games a season.
Local businesses wouldn't be happy, the borough would lose an employer and a company that brings a lot of "customers" into the borough.
Any planning application would be fought and the shadow of the Valley Party would loom large.
The football club and Trust as seen as important benefits to the area.
Everything except the social housing element is only true while there is a football club there, or a realistic chance of a football club being there in the very near future. How long would it take to not be be true?
Would be my concern too. If he's in it for the long game, how long before the ground deteriorates to the extent that redevelopment is seen as a better option? Even more if there were to be a couple of 'mysterious' fires that would speed things along (didn't something similar happen to an adjoining property when WHL was being redeveloped?)
As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.
An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.
I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.
I guess you are one of those that do give their £25 plus to Roly at 1500hrs and then moan later about the guy - unbelievable 😎
For me what is unbelievable is that you claim to be a Charlton fan who sees boycotting as taking some sort of moral high ground. A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
I am not claiming to hold any moral high ground, just simply stating a fact that I cant understand how ppl can put money into Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and bitch about him for the rest of the week - oxymoron.
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
Im not going to criticise you @PeterGage nor question your Charlton credentials as I know what they are and I have far too much respect for you and others.
And I also understand your argument. Indeed I never renewed my season ticket a couple of seasons ago as I too felt a fraud through protesting and then paying my money.
But with one side of your argument there are also other sides.
Would you not equally agree that that £25 that ‘lines Roland’s pockets’ also goes towards paying Lyle Taylor’s wages, Josh Cullen and Bielik’s loan fees, and the wages of everyone of those players that busted an absolute gut in our shirt on Saturday?
That it pays Tracey Leaburn’s wages and a whole host of long serving staff that have been here long before Roland and who many equally can’t stand what he’s done to the club? That if more people paid their £25 than currently are the club would have a better chance of securing Joe Aribo as a Charlton player for the next 3 years?
And finally, that the badge, The Valley and heart and spirit of being ‘Charlton’ is so much more than a distant overseas man that currently owns it at this specific point in time?
It’s never straight forward and there is no convincing argument either way imo. I can’t only speak for myself and say I got back back into it and I am so so pleased that I did as I’ve loved seeing the commitment and football played by our players, particularly since Bowyer has taken over.
It won’t even be a consideration. Even capacity crowds would not eliminate the current operating loss and RD isn’t going to put in a penny more than he needs to keep the club going for a sale. He would just pocket the extra money and laugh at at anyone who had believed otherwise.
How is he pocketing anything? The club runs at a massive loss.
It will determine, along with the eventual sale price and any intervening player sales, how much he ultimately loses. So, yes, he will pocket the difference.
Ah, I see what you mean, although he's deffinately going to lose a small fortune so I'm not sure we can call it pocketing.
If you believe, as I do, that his goal is to exit football as a whole with a profit, and boast about his business acumen as a result, it is clear that he wants to pocket the money from transfers at this time, and leave the new owners to inherit a squad bereft of talent. That is exactly how he exited Standard. That is why Airman quite rightly points to the close season and the player contract meltdown if we don't have a new owner.
In order to sell players they need to have actual contracts though, surely?
Would anyone other than Taylor command a fee?
Hence why Steve Gallen said in September that Roland wanted the "assets" signed up on longer contracts.
So we've gone from "sweating the assets" under previous owners to sweating about the assets signing new contracts under this one.
As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.
An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.
I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.
I guess you are one of those that do give their £25 plus to Roly at 1500hrs and then moan later about the guy - unbelievable 😎
For me what is unbelievable is that you claim to be a Charlton fan who sees boycotting as taking some sort of moral high ground. A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
I am not claiming to hold any moral high ground, just simply stating a fact that I cant understand how ppl can put money into Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and bitch about him for the rest of the week - oxymoron.
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
Im not going to criticise you @PeterGage nor question your Charlton credentials as I know what they are and I have far too much respect for you and others.
And I also understand your argument. Indeed I never renewed my season ticket a couple of seasons ago as I too felt a fraud through protesting and then paying my money.
But with one side of your argument there are also other sides.
Would you not equally agree that that £25 that ‘lines Roland’s pockets’ also goes towards paying Lyle Taylor’s wages, Josh Cullen and Bielik’s loan fees, and the wages of everyone of those players that busted an absolute gut in our shirt on Saturday?
That it pays Tracey Leaburn’s wages and a whole host of long serving staff that have been here long before Roland and who many equally can’t stand what he’s done to the club?
That if more people paid their £25 than currently are the club would have a better chance of securing Joe Aribo as a Charlton player for the next 3 years?
And finally, that the badge, The Valley and heart and spirit of being ‘Charlton’ is so much more than a distant overseas man that currently owns it at this specific point in time?
It’s never straight forward and there is no convincing argument either way imo. I can’t only speak for myself and say I got back back into it and I am so so pleased that I did as I’ve loved seeing the commitment and football played by our players, particularly since Bowyer has taken over.
Some great points but Roland would still sell our best players if we got 27,000 every week.
As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.
An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.
I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.
I guess you are one of those that do give their £25 plus to Roly at 1500hrs and then moan later about the guy - unbelievable 😎
For me what is unbelievable is that you claim to be a Charlton fan who sees boycotting as taking some sort of moral high ground. A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
I am not claiming to hold any moral high ground, just simply stating a fact that I cant understand how ppl can put money into Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and bitch about him for the rest of the week - oxymoron.
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
Im not going to criticise you @PeterGage nor question your Charlton credentials as I know what they are and I have far too much respect for you and others.
And I also understand your argument. Indeed I never renewed my season ticket a couple of seasons ago as I too felt a fraud through protesting and then paying my money.
But with one side of your argument there are also other sides.
Would you not equally agree that that £25 that ‘lines Roland’s pockets’ also goes towards paying Lyle Taylor’s wages, Josh Cullen and Bielik’s loan fees, and the wages of everyone of those players that busted an absolute gut in our shirt on Saturday?
That it pays Tracey Leaburn’s wages and a whole host of long serving staff that have been here long before Roland and who many equally can’t stand what he’s done to the club?
That if more people paid their £25 than currently are the club would have a better chance of securing Joe Aribo as a Charlton player for the next 3 years?
And finally, that the badge, The Valley and heart and spirit of being ‘Charlton’ is so much more than a distant overseas man that currently owns it at this specific point in time?
It’s never straight forward and there is no convincing argument either way imo. I can’t only speak for myself and say I got back back into it and I am so so pleased that I did as I’ve loved seeing the commitment and football played by our players, particularly since Bowyer has taken over.
Thanks @AFKABartram for your balanced views, which deserve a response.
I accept that gate money goes towards funding our players and potentially funding the retention of Joe Aribo. However, from my perception, the bigger goal is to see the back of Roly and I believe reducing his income accelerates his departure. I understand however that others may not share my view.
I did not criticise those that still go, although I cannot understand their stance. My point was that I find it unbelievable that some on here puts money into Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and slags him off on here from 1700 onwards. Surely that is an oxymoron!
Have a good day
It's only paradoxical if people accept your premise that reducing the club's income accelerates Roland's departure.
Plenty of people don't accept that premise, and therefore see no contradiction in going to watch the team whilst being critical of the ownership.
But it's been long established that these two opposing views exist on Charlton Life. And every time a poster chooses to raise the issue, it leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions
I understand that people wish to express which of the aforementioned views they personally hold, but I'm fairly confident that everyone that wants to do so has done so by now, probably more than once.
So I can't see what people get from bringing the same issue up time and time again. As far as I can tell, the debate never progresses, people's views never change. It just seems tedious. And I'm aware of the irony of the fact that I'm now contributing to the tedium.
As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.
An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.
I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.
I guess you are one of those that do give their £25 plus to Roly at 1500hrs and then moan later about the guy - unbelievable 😎
For me what is unbelievable is that you claim to be a Charlton fan who sees boycotting as taking some sort of moral high ground. A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
I am not claiming to hold any moral high ground, just simply stating a fact that I cant understand how ppl can put money into Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and bitch about him for the rest of the week - oxymoron.
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
Im not going to criticise you @PeterGage nor question your Charlton credentials as I know what they are and I have far too much respect for you and others.
And I also understand your argument. Indeed I never renewed my season ticket a couple of seasons ago as I too felt a fraud through protesting and then paying my money.
But with one side of your argument there are also other sides.
Would you not equally agree that that £25 that ‘lines Roland’s pockets’ also goes towards paying Lyle Taylor’s wages, Josh Cullen and Bielik’s loan fees, and the wages of everyone of those players that busted an absolute gut in our shirt on Saturday?
That it pays Tracey Leaburn’s wages and a whole host of long serving staff that have been here long before Roland and who many equally can’t stand what he’s done to the club?
That if more people paid their £25 than currently are the club would have a better chance of securing Joe Aribo as a Charlton player for the next 3 years?
And finally, that the badge, The Valley and heart and spirit of being ‘Charlton’ is so much more than a distant overseas man that currently owns it at this specific point in time?
It’s never straight forward and there is no convincing argument either way imo. I can’t only speak for myself and say I got back back into it and I am so so pleased that I did as I’ve loved seeing the commitment and football played by our players, particularly since Bowyer has taken over.
Thanks @AFKABartram for your balanced views, which deserve a response.
I accept that gate money goes towards funding our players and potentially funding the retention of Joe Aribo. However, from my perception, the bigger goal is to see the back of Roly and I believe reducing his income accelerates his departure. I understand however that others may not share my view.
I did not criticise those that still go, although I cannot understand their stance. My point was that I find it unbelievable that some on here puts money into Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and slags him off on here from 1700 onwards. Surely that is an oxymoron!
Have a good day
It's only paradoxical if people accept your premise that reducing the club's income accelerates Roland's departure.
Plenty of people don't accept that premise, and therefore see no contradiction in going to watch the team whilst being critical of the ownership.
But it's been long established that these two opposing views exist on Charlton Life. And every time a poster chooses to raise the issue, it leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions
I understand that people wish to express which of the aforementioned views they personally hold, but I'm fairly confident that everyone that wants to do so has done so by now, probably more than once.
So I can't see what people get from bringing the same issue up time and time again. As far as I can tell, the debate never progresses, people's views never change. It just seems tedious. And I'm aware of the irony of the fact that I'm now contributing to the tedium.
It is a fact, not an opinion, that Roly has reduced his budget in recent months, as shown by many cost cutting areas, such as not paying staff bonuses, selling Grant etc. Do you believe that the reduction in gate money had no bearing whatsoever on the current financial activities and has no bearing on Roly's decision to sell.. genuine questions
For clarity has the former banker’s offer been dimissed or can I keep a candle burning for that potential deal?
I expect the club to treat that offer like it does Roland’s statements - pretend it doesn’t exist and move on. It’s really up to the media, in the first instance, to make that impossible for them.
As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.
An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.
I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.
I guess you are one of those that do give their £25 plus to Roly at 1500hrs and then moan later about the guy - unbelievable 😎
For me what is unbelievable is that you claim to be a Charlton fan who sees boycotting as taking some sort of moral high ground. A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
I am not claiming to hold any moral high ground, just simply stating a fact that I cant understand how ppl can put money into Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and bitch about him for the rest of the week - oxymoron.
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
Im not going to criticise you @PeterGage nor question your Charlton credentials as I know what they are and I have far too much respect for you and others.
And I also understand your argument. Indeed I never renewed my season ticket a couple of seasons ago as I too felt a fraud through protesting and then paying my money.
But with one side of your argument there are also other sides.
Would you not equally agree that that £25 that ‘lines Roland’s pockets’ also goes towards paying Lyle Taylor’s wages, Josh Cullen and Bielik’s loan fees, and the wages of everyone of those players that busted an absolute gut in our shirt on Saturday?
That it pays Tracey Leaburn’s wages and a whole host of long serving staff that have been here long before Roland and who many equally can’t stand what he’s done to the club?
That if more people paid their £25 than currently are the club would have a better chance of securing Joe Aribo as a Charlton player for the next 3 years?
And finally, that the badge, The Valley and heart and spirit of being ‘Charlton’ is so much more than a distant overseas man that currently owns it at this specific point in time?
It’s never straight forward and there is no convincing argument either way imo. I can’t only speak for myself and say I got back back into it and I am so so pleased that I did as I’ve loved seeing the commitment and football played by our players, particularly since Bowyer has taken over.
Thanks @AFKABartram for your balanced views, which deserve a response.
I accept that gate money goes towards funding our players and potentially funding the retention of Joe Aribo. However, from my perception, the bigger goal is to see the back of Roly and I believe reducing his income accelerates his departure. I understand however that others may not share my view.
I did not criticise those that still go, although I cannot understand their stance. My point was that I find it unbelievable that some on here puts money into Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and slags him off on here from 1700 onwards. Surely that is an oxymoron!
Have a good day
It's only paradoxical if people accept your premise that reducing the club's income accelerates Roland's departure.
Plenty of people don't accept that premise, and therefore see no contradiction in going to watch the team whilst being critical of the ownership.
But it's been long established that these two opposing views exist on Charlton Life. And every time a poster chooses to raise the issue, it leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions
I understand that people wish to express which of the aforementioned views they personally hold, but I'm fairly confident that everyone that wants to do so has done so by now, probably more than once.
So I can't see what people get from bringing the same issue up time and time again. As far as I can tell, the debate never progresses, people's views never change. It just seems tedious. And I'm aware of the irony of the fact that I'm now contributing to the tedium.
It is a fact, not an opinion, that Roly has reduced his budget in recent months, as shown by many cost cutting areas, such as not paying staff bonuses, selling Grant etc. Do you believe that the reduction in gate money had no bearing whatsoever on the current financial activities and has no bearing on Roly's decision to sell.. genuine questions
Nobody on here understands RD - I think we've established that. If you asked Roland directly he could explain how his mind works.
All we've established is the guy has no interest in football and no idea how to run a football club.
For clarity has the former banker’s offer been dimissed or can I keep a candle burning for that potential deal?
I expect the club to treat that offer like it does Roland’s statements - pretend it doesn’t exist and move on. It’s really up to the media, in the first instance, to make that impossible for them.
Airman, I was wondering about that. Are there contacts at the Standard who could do a follow up on the status of the bid they reported on last week? Assuming he has responded negatively to the bid (assuming the bidder is willing to confirm) it might be helpful to have a report saying that RD had apparently turned down a bid in the region of £30-35M plus paying off the £7M former directors loans. This, so soon after going on Talksport to say he was willing to give the club away bar The Valley and Sparrows Lane. Would kind of put focus in the public domain on the offers RD is turning down and the high valuation he is holding out for. Probably achieves nothing other than continuing to highlight that it is his valuation as opposed to fans protests et al which are preventing any sale.
For clarity has the former banker’s offer been dimissed or can I keep a candle burning for that potential deal?
I expect the club to treat that offer like it does Roland’s statements - pretend it doesn’t exist and move on. It’s really up to the media, in the first instance, to make that impossible for them.
Airman, I was wondering about that. Are there contacts at the Standard who could do a follow up on the status of the bid they reported on last week? Assuming he has responded negatively to the bid (assuming the bidder is willing to confirm) it might be helpful to have a report saying that RD had apparently turned down a bid in the region of £30-35M plus paying off the £7M former directors loans. This, so soon after going on Talksport to say he was willing to give the club away bar The Valley and Sparrows Lane. Would kind of put focus in the public domain on the offers RD is turning down and the high valuation he is holding out for. Probably achieves nothing other than continuing to highlight that it is his valuation as opposed to fans protests et al which are preventing any sale.
Yes. And elsewhere. Tom Rubashow’s usual tactic is to refer reporters to the fans’ forum. I think it’s up to the press to tell him that won’t wash.
Comments
Wigan, to take a recent example have now been taken over by Hong Kong investors, I doubt they're doing it because they love the club or town.
{weird}
Prague Addick?
He's not that big, is he?
All we've established is the guy has no interest in football and no idea how to run a football club.
Yeah I'm sure that it's never hereditary... :-)
Sure he's still nuts but he's shown a willingness to negotiate and talk with other world leaders about peace... Something his father never would have.
He's even ensured the charges were dropped against his brothers alleged killer!