Am yes we can do something about it, protest may have got us to where we are. Would any prospective owner want to get off on the wrong foot so badly when attendance could be so vital to margins
Quite agree , they don't want to go upsetting the natives when crowd attendance might be vitally important part of their funding of the club .
The freehold of the ground (and Sparrows Lane) is owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited, which like CAFC Ltd, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Baton 2010 Limited, in turn owned by Staprix. CAFC Limited is the leaseholder of The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
This separation under the same ownership has been in place for 25 years.
Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited should not be confused with CA Holdings Limited, the BVI registered company, which previously owned 90 per cent of Baton.
If it's owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Ltd, they therefore hold the legal title. The question remains, then, whether a transfer of ownership within 'group' would trigger the ACV stuff. In reality I would imagine Baton will be sold, so if the Valley remains with Staprix that's a de facto change of ownership, and the title would need to transfer - right? Which in turn triggers the ACV.
If the training ground was being sold with the club, I guess you'd only need to move the training ground out of Charlton Athletic Holdings and sell the training ground alongside CAFC Ltd. There would presumably need to be a new lease, but if Staprix retained Baton and Holdings there would technically and actually be no change in the freehold ownership of The Valley?
The freehold of the ground (and Sparrows Lane) is owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited, which like CAFC Ltd, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Baton 2010 Limited, in turn owned by Staprix. CAFC Limited is the leaseholder of The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
This separation under the same ownership has been in place for 25 years.
Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited should not be confused with CA Holdings Limited, the BVI registered company, which previously owned 90 per cent of Baton.
If it's owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Ltd, they therefore hold the legal title. The question remains, then, whether a transfer of ownership within 'group' would trigger the ACV stuff. In reality I would imagine Baton will be sold, so if the Valley remains with Staprix that's a de facto change of ownership, and the title would need to transfer - right? Which in turn triggers the ACV.
If the training ground was being sold with the club, I guess you'd only need to move the training ground out of Charlton Athletic Holdings and sell the training ground alongside CAFC Ltd. There would presumably need to be a new lease, but if Staprix retained Baton and Holdings there would technically and actually be no change in the freehold ownership of The Valley?
I thought this. Duchatelet moves everything he wants to sell into one vehicle which he sells, and everything he wants to keep stays where it is under his ownership.
I know it's couple of pages back now, but @Chizz you are an absolute pompous twat and a complete tosser in the way you respond to people. Nobody values your opinion.
Did I miss the bit where you were appointed spokesperson for the whole forum?
Lol! Yeah I probably didn't need to say that last bit, sorry. I was absolutely steaming when I wrote that should've not said anything in the first place.
So whilst the club and ground have been in separate holding companies they have been run in tandem with one another for the last 25 years. My concern with the proposed sale is two different parties owning one part each and not working together.
The freehold of the ground (and Sparrows Lane) is owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited, which like CAFC Ltd, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Baton 2010 Limited, in turn owned by Staprix. CAFC Limited is the leaseholder of The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
This separation under the same ownership has been in place for 25 years.
Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited should not be confused with CA Holdings Limited, the BVI registered company, which previously owned 90 per cent of Baton.
If it's owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Ltd, they therefore hold the legal title. The question remains, then, whether a transfer of ownership within 'group' would trigger the ACV stuff. In reality I would imagine Baton will be sold, so if the Valley remains with Staprix that's a de facto change of ownership, and the title would need to transfer - right? Which in turn triggers the ACV.
If the training ground was being sold with the club, I guess you'd only need to move the training ground out of Charlton Athletic Holdings and sell the training ground alongside CAFC Ltd. There would presumably need to be a new lease, but if Staprix retained Baton and Holdings there would technically and actually be no change in the freehold ownership of The Valley?
The freehold of the ground (and Sparrows Lane) is owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited, which like CAFC Ltd, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Baton 2010 Limited, in turn owned by Staprix. CAFC Limited is the leaseholder of The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
This separation under the same ownership has been in place for 25 years.
Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited should not be confused with CA Holdings Limited, the BVI registered company, which previously owned 90 per cent of Baton.
If it's owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Ltd, they therefore hold the legal title. The question remains, then, whether a transfer of ownership within 'group' would trigger the ACV stuff. In reality I would imagine Baton will be sold, so if the Valley remains with Staprix that's a de facto change of ownership, and the title would need to transfer - right? Which in turn triggers the ACV.
If the training ground was being sold with the club, I guess you'd only need to move the training ground out of Charlton Athletic Holdings and sell the training ground alongside CAFC Ltd. There would presumably need to be a new lease, but if Staprix retained Baton and Holdings there would technically and actually be no change in the freehold ownership of The Valley?
I thought this. Duchatelet moves everything he wants to sell into one vehicle which he sells, and everything he wants to keep stays where it is under his ownership.
Sort of like the banks did with ringfencing the bad debt thing?
I'm assuming that Charlton have leaked this to bring in other higher bidders. I can see no good reason for the Aussies to have done so.
Let's say RD is looking for £30M to walk away completely, but has only been offered £20M.
So he says for that price, I'll keep The Valley and lease it to you.
Hopefully, he'd rather get out altogether, let's remember his age.
I still think Elliot's consortium offered him £30m, but of course we were in The Championship then.
High profile posters on this site and other sites seem to have been receiving accurate info about the the publication of the Daily Mail story for several days before it was published on Thursday evening. Only they can tell us if this information was coming from their usual club sources, the Daily Mail or the so called 'consortium'. It would be helpful, and I don't see why they can't, if they could confirm who was feeding them the story.
The only reason we knew is because the Mail was asking questions; the story didn't come from usual club sources or from CARD, etc.
Ok. That is interesting. And confirms my suspicion that the consultant behind the so called 'consortium' sold/planted the story with the Daily Mail purely for self promotion purposes.
I'm assuming that Charlton have leaked this to bring in other higher bidders. I can see no good reason for the Aussies to have done so.
Let's say RD is looking for £30M to walk away completely, but has only been offered £20M.
So he says for that price, I'll keep The Valley and lease it to you.
Hopefully, he'd rather get out altogether, let's remember his age.
I still think Elliot's consortium offered him £30m, but of course we were in The Championship then.
High profile posters on this site and other sites seem to have been receiving accurate info about the the publication of the Daily Mail story for several days before it was published on Thursday evening. Only they can tell us if this information was coming from their usual club sources, the Daily Mail or the so called 'consortium'. It would be helpful, and I don't see why they can't, if they could confirm who was feeding them the story.
The only reason we knew is because the Mail was asking questions; the story didn't come from usual club sources or from CARD, etc.
Ok. That is interesting. And confirms my suspicion that the consultant behind the so called 'consortium' sold/planted the story with the Daily Mail purely for self promotion purposes.
I cannot imagine RD giving the manager any money to spend on players if a sale is in the offing. Uness a sale is done quickly we will likely have another weak squad come July.
I've heard that they have raised 21m, 20m for Roly, 1m to fund promotion. Going to rent The Valley for 3m a season, deal in place that they will buy it for 40m once we reach the PL. Pardew is the new manager, Congo Chris staying on to collect the rent in cash each week and coach the first team. New CEO to be appointed but Katrien staying to head up Communications Dept. Sue Perks being appointed Catering Manager. Sparrows Lane will be part sold to Millwall and both clubs will share the facilities.
The above is all true. Or maybe it isn't. Just chill everyone until we know what this approach actually involves.
I've heard that they have raised 21m, 20m for Roly, 1m to fund promotion. Going to rent The Valley for 3m a season, deal in place that they will buy it for 40m once we reach the PL. Pardew is the new manager, Congo Chris staying on to collect the rent in cash each week and coach the first team. New CEO to be appointed but Katrien staying to head up Communications Dept. Sue Perks being appointed Catering Manager. Sparrows Lane will be part sold to Millwall and both clubs will share the facilities.
The above is all true. Or maybe it isn't. Just chill everyone until we know what this approach actually involves.
I was with you, until you mentioned Pardew. Very good.
The more I read about this potential takeover, the more I think they won't be the ones to be our next owners. That's not me being overly negative (I want a sale tomorrow). It's more that I don't think these guys have the necessary backing yet, and RD is still holding out for some sort of deal that will allow him to recoup most of his losses.
The sale will happen, but I'm not sure it will be to this lot
The more I read about this potential takeover, the more I think they won't be the ones to be our next owners. That's not me being overly negative (I want a sale tomorrow). It's more that I don't think these guys have the necessary backing yet, and RD is still holding out for some sort of deal that will allow him to recoup most of his losses.
The sale will happen, but I'm not sure it will be to this lot
I've read a few times that Charlton is The Valley. I have to disagree, although don't get me wrong I do understand the sentiment.
The Valley was the third home ground for me as a Charlton fan. 1st was Selhurst, 2nd Upton and then The Valley. My love affair with Charlton happened after a 3-0 loss to Arsenal at Selhurst.
Is The Valley important, oh yes. My dad's brick is there outside the main stand and is one of the last things I have to hold onto of him. But is it Charlton? I'd say we are bigger than that.
The Aussie group has ambition. Has set targets. So I would be happy with that to move the club forward. The Valley as a home ground, owned or rented is fine. But we are bigger than the ground alone.
I've read a few times that Charlton is The Valley. I have to disagree, although don't get me wrong I do understand the sentiment.
The Valley was the third home ground for me as a Charlton fan. 1st was Selhurst, 2nd Upton and then The Valley. My love affair with Charlton happened after a 3-0 loss to Arsenal at Selhurst.
Is The Valley important, oh yes. My dad's brick is there outside the main stand and is one of the last things I have to hold onto of him. But is it Charlton? I'd say we are bigger than that.
The Aussie group has ambition. Has set targets. So I would be happy with that to move the club forward. The Valley as a home ground, owned or rented is fine. But we are bigger than the ground alone.
It's a step into the unknown not owning our ground with new foreign ownership who are clearly not Charlton supporters. I doubt it will end well not owning the Valley, renting off the previous owner who had/has no interest in competitive football. I believe you when mention the Aussies having ambitions, they are not alone. Only 3 teams per year in their respective divisions get close to realising their ambitions.
Before people make demands on what they think should happen in relation to the Valley, they should look at the terms of any future deal. There is an assumption that Duchatelet wants to keep the Valley, but it may be the buyer doesn't and sees an opportunity to rent it on the cheap. The great thing about the Valley is that is not possible to use it for anything other than a football ground, so whilst it has a value in one sense, it doesn't in another!
The facts that we do know about is that Duchatelet is losing money hand over fist with us and there is no prospect of that changing under his ownership. Yes, he wants his money back, but the longer he keeps us, the more unlikely that will be. Realistically, it is already impossible. We are worth what we are worth, not what he has blown on us!
When players are sold, they are often sold with clauses - playing x number of games, playing for England and most importantly a sell on etc... This brings up the cost of the deal but on condition that the deal is a good one! I see it is a similar principle leasing the ground. You would say, look we will pay you more than the club is worth, but it is conditional on us making the top flight! It is good business because it mitigates your risk but gives Duchatelet a chance to recoup more of his money if they hit the jackpot and certainly stop losing money. Duchatelet, thus keeps an interest in us being successful, but we don't have to have is crazy suicidal ideas.
Now it could be the Aussies have no business sense, but I think there is a better chance that they do have. It seems logical to me that leasing the Valley on your terms, makes more sense than buying it. Whilst it worries a lot, it actually gives me more confidence about these potential buyers. It seems to me they have their heads screwed on.
And there is a lot of sporting talent in Australia. We can be a feeder club, but for the Australian Soceroos - giving their best young players exposure and learning at a higher level. Look at the catchment area! And now Brexit has happened, this is a perfect time for an Australian consortium to get involved.
I've been thinking about it and I just can't see any benefit to splitting the ground off the club.
Coventry is the prime example to look at, forced to leave The Ricoh Arena before because they believed the rent was far too high which is why they ended up at Northampton.
With Roland as the landlord and no emotional ties to the club that could easily be us one day. It would be different if it was someone like Murray as the landlord but not a businessman with no affiliation to us, I only see risk and no reward.
Before people make demands on what they think should happen in relation to the Valley, they should look at the terms of any future deal. There is an assumption that Duchatelet wants to keep the Valley, but it may be the buyer doesn't and sees an opportunity to rent it on the cheap. The great thing about the Valley is that is not possible to use it for anything other than a football ground, so whilst it has a value in one sense, it doesn't in another!
The facts that we do know about is that Duchatelet is losing money hand over fist with us and there is no prospect of that changing under his ownership. Yes, he wants his money back, but the longer he keeps us, the more unlikely that will be. Realistically, it is already impossible. We are worth what we are worth, not what he has blown on us!
When players are sold, they are often sold with clauses - playing x number of games, playing for England and most importantly a sell on etc... This brings up the cost of the deal but on condition that the deal is a good one! I see it is a similar principle leasing the ground. You would say, look we will pay you more than the club is worth, but it is conditional on us making the top flight! It is good business because it mitigates your risk but gives Duchatelet a chance to recoup more of his money if they hit the jackpot and certainly stop losing money. Duchatelet, thus keeps an interest in us being successful, but we don't have to have is crazy suicidal ideas.
Now it could be the Aussies have no business sense, but I think there is a better chance that they do have. It seems logical to me that leasing the Valley on your terms, makes more sense than buying it. Whilst it worries a lot, it actually gives me more confidence about these potential buyers. It seems to me they have their heads screwed on.
And there is a lot of sporting talent in Australia. We can be a feeder club, but for the Australian Soceroos - giving their best young players exposure and learning at a higher level. Look at the catchment area! And now Brexit has happened, this is a perfect time for an Australian consortium to get involved.
Aussies I know, who like "soccer", may follow the A league, but really their main interest is in the English league and of course the Premier League. Any high profile Aussie player playing for an English club is followed with great interest by the sporting media. A mate of mine is a Steward with Qantas. He came to London for a year to train on the A380. Started going to Reading games and is now Reading mad, sleeps in their shirt and even flew all the way back for a weekend just to see them play. I think Aussie soccer fans would really take to adopting an English team of their own. But that would depend on us being successful.
I've read a few times that Charlton is The Valley. I have to disagree, although don't get me wrong I do understand the sentiment.
The Valley was the third home ground for me as a Charlton fan. 1st was Selhurst, 2nd Upton and then The Valley. My love affair with Charlton happened after a 3-0 loss to Arsenal at Selhurst.
Is The Valley important, oh yes. My dad's brick is there outside the main stand and is one of the last things I have to hold onto of him. But is it Charlton? I'd say we are bigger than that.
The Aussie group has ambition. Has set targets. So I would be happy with that to move the club forward. The Valley as a home ground, owned or rented is fine. But we are bigger than the ground alone.
I want us to stay at the Valley but if there was a properly thought out and planned move to another site nearby then I would consider it. Whilst we know next to nothing about this deal the majority of posters on here assume (as I do) that the Valley will be leased and a new ground will not be bought.
Of the top of my head I can not think of one team in England that has prospered or even stood still when they no longer owned their own ground. Most crash down the leagues and end up reforming or non-league. The only three examples where this might not be the case are.
West Ham at the Olympic stadium, but they have a ridiculously good deal and it is too early to tell. Wimbledon at Selhurst, they maintained status but it eventually went horribly wrong for the real team who recovered once own ground was secured. And us during the Selhurst/UP years but I would argue that that was fueled mostly by the fight to get back to the Valley.
Also, as others have said, if they are blowing £20m on the name where will they find the money to buy the land and develop a stadium in London?
Before people make demands on what they think should happen in relation to the Valley, they should look at the terms of any future deal. There is an assumption that Duchatelet wants to keep the Valley, but it may be the buyer doesn't and sees an opportunity to rent it on the cheap. The great thing about the Valley is that is not possible to use it for anything other than a football ground, so whilst it has a value in one sense, it doesn't in another!
The facts that we do know about is that Duchatelet is losing money hand over fist with us and there is no prospect of that changing under his ownership. Yes, he wants his money back, but the longer he keeps us, the more unlikely that will be. Realistically, it is already impossible. We are worth what we are worth, not what he has blown on us!
When players are sold, they are often sold with clauses - playing x number of games, playing for England and most importantly a sell on etc... This brings up the cost of the deal but on condition that the deal is a good one! I see it is a similar principle leasing the ground. You would say, look we will pay you more than the club is worth, but it is conditional on us making the top flight! It is good business because it mitigates your risk but gives Duchatelet a chance to recoup more of his money if they hit the jackpot and certainly stop losing money. Duchatelet, thus keeps an interest in us being successful, but we don't have to have is crazy suicidal ideas.
Now it could be the Aussies have no business sense, but I think there is a better chance that they do have. It seems logical to me that leasing the Valley on your terms, makes more sense than buying it. Whilst it worries a lot, it actually gives me more confidence about these potential buyers. It seems to me they have their heads screwed on.
And there is a lot of sporting talent in Australia. We can be a feeder club, but for the Australian Soceroos - giving their best young players exposure and learning at a higher level. Look at the catchment area! And now Brexit has happened, this is a perfect time for an Australian consortium to get involved.
I agree with you but for your first paragraph, why can the Valley be used solely or partly for football? In this country you can have a whole village scrubbed off the map for an airport or a train line. If it were any other landlord I might be a little more optimistic but this is just business to him and his company and he has never cared for our club.
From what I remember Airman saying about a property sale under the Spivs on the (I think) south-eastern corner of the ground, title to some strategically important land has already passed outside the club's control.
I don't know if that makes it easier or harder for Roland to unbundle the club from the Valley if that was a route he was prepared to go down.
I've read a few times that Charlton is The Valley. I have to disagree, although don't get me wrong I do understand the sentiment.
The Valley was the third home ground for me as a Charlton fan. 1st was Selhurst, 2nd Upton and then The Valley. My love affair with Charlton happened after a 3-0 loss to Arsenal at Selhurst.
Is The Valley important, oh yes. My dad's brick is there outside the main stand and is one of the last things I have to hold onto of him. But is it Charlton? I'd say we are bigger than that.
The Aussie group has ambition. Has set targets. So I would be happy with that to move the club forward. The Valley as a home ground, owned or rented is fine. But we are bigger than the ground alone.
Well, OK, in what way bigger? If the Valley was too small for us, or too dilapidated I could start to at least consider that proposition. But for most of the time I have been supporting Charlton (since 1962) the Valley has been too big for the ambitions of the club. It was of course dilapidated for much of that time, but no longer, and how many other fans' favourite stories of their club are as closely tied to their ground as ours?
There is no good business case that I can see for leasing the Valley from Duchatelet, still less at this time for moving stadia. Unless of course you want us to downsize to permanently reflect our reduced on-pitch status.
Finally I am interested to learn that you started supporting the club at Selhurst. It might explain your perspective but you are in a small minority. We recruited very few new fans in those dismal five years. Most fans are either old enough to remember the old Valley, or were recruited in the post Selhurst uptunr.
I've read a few times that Charlton is The Valley. I have to disagree, although don't get me wrong I do understand the sentiment.
The Valley was the third home ground for me as a Charlton fan. 1st was Selhurst, 2nd Upton and then The Valley. My love affair with Charlton happened after a 3-0 loss to Arsenal at Selhurst.
Is The Valley important, oh yes. My dad's brick is there outside the main stand and is one of the last things I have to hold onto of him. But is it Charlton? I'd say we are bigger than that.
The Aussie group has ambition. Has set targets. So I would be happy with that to move the club forward. The Valley as a home ground, owned or rented is fine. But we are bigger than the ground alone.
I want us to stay at the Valley but if there was a properly thought out and planned move to another site nearby then I would consider it. Whilst we know next to nothing about this deal the majority of posters on here assume (as I do) that the Valley will be leased and a new ground will not be bought.
Of the top of my head I can not think of one team in England that has prospered or even stood still when they no longer owned their own ground. Most crash down the leagues and end up reforming or non-league. The only three examples where this might not be the case are.
West Ham at the Olympic stadium, but they have a ridiculously good deal and it is too early to tell. Wimbledon at Selhurst, they maintained status but it eventually went horribly wrong for the real team who recovered once own ground was secured. And us during the Selhurst/UP years but I would argue that that was fueled mostly by the fight to get back to the Valley.
Also, as others have said, if they are blowing £20m on the name where will they find the money to buy the land and develop a stadium in London?
That would be my worry however the only time I think Charlton need to consider a move away from the Valley if we increased the ground to 40,000, are a sell out every week, a top 6 Premier League Team and an incredible fanbase.
The Valley has been our home since the early 1920's. It's true we've moved away but we've always came back 'home' again. It was only 25 years ago we fought the Greenwich Council and played on our first day back at the Valley against Portsmouth so surely a move away after that period would actually ruin this?
The other question is why would Roland want to keep the ground? He may be able to extract rent, but that would take him decades to do as any higher rent would surely drive an owner to seek a new ground. He can't develop commercially like he has at St Truiden as the Valley isn't in a city centre location where leisure/business premises make sense, it's in a residential side street. And as mentioned many time, access is a major problem for any sort of redevelopment and there for an expensive problem to solve, thus removing any profit from potential developments.
The only possible reason to keep the ground is either to spite the fans and/or as security against future payments contingent on football success. That being the case, charging a high rent would go against his own interests as it would materially harm changes of on-field success that would lead him seeing some of his money back. I can't see how he could possibly charge in rent any more than the bare minimum interest on the money he has "loaned" the club, so in essence he wouldn't be getting any of his money back.
The other question is why would Roland want to keep the ground? He may be able to extract rent, but that would take him decades to do as any higher rent would surely drive an owner to seek a new ground. He can't develop commercially like he has at St Truiden as the Valley isn't in a city centre location where leisure/business premises make sense, it's in a residential side street. And as mentioned many time, access is a major problem for any sort of redevelopment and there for an expensive problem to solve, thus removing any profit from potential developments.
The only possible reason to keep the ground is either to spite the fans and/or as security against future payments contingent on football success. That being the case, charging a high rent would go against his own interests as it would materially harm changes of on-field success that would lead him seeing some of his money back. I can't see how he could possibly charge in rent any more than the bare minimum interest on the money he has "loaned" the club, so in essence he wouldn't be getting any of his money back.
The Trust thinks it has uncovered another revenue stream at Sint-Truiden during our inspection of the Staprix accounts. We need to do more work on it, before saying more; however coupled with his eagerness to build a complex at Jena (where admittedly there is far more room) it starts to look like his new way of being a visionary in football. Forget the network idea; hive off the real estate and make the revenue there. There is of course nothing wrong with making the stadium work during the week - there was going to be a bowling alley at the Valley, remember. The RD model however does not assume that the commercial revenue is there to support the football side. STVV are entirely beholden to RD's whims when it comes to the football. The revenue stream we have uncovered at Stayen does not feed back directly to STVV. Indeed STVV is not (apparently) owned by Staprix.
Comments
Apologies.
I'd rather Roland doesn't own anything at all and with owners who doesn't necessary have billions but can properly stabilise the Club.
The above is all true. Or maybe it isn't. Just chill everyone until we know what this approach actually involves.
Tony Keohane to add Police Liaison officer to his existing duties.
The sale will happen, but I'm not sure it will be to this lot
The Valley was the third home ground for me as a Charlton fan. 1st was Selhurst, 2nd Upton and then The Valley. My love affair with Charlton happened after a 3-0 loss to Arsenal at Selhurst.
Is The Valley important, oh yes. My dad's brick is there outside the main stand and is one of the last things I have to hold onto of him. But is it Charlton? I'd say we are bigger than that.
The Aussie group has ambition. Has set targets. So I would be happy with that to move the club forward. The Valley as a home ground, owned or rented is fine. But we are bigger than the ground alone.
I believe you when mention the Aussies having ambitions, they are not alone. Only 3 teams per year in their respective divisions get close to realising their ambitions.
The facts that we do know about is that Duchatelet is losing money hand over fist with us and there is no prospect of that changing under his ownership. Yes, he wants his money back, but the longer he keeps us, the more unlikely that will be. Realistically, it is already impossible. We are worth what we are worth, not what he has blown on us!
When players are sold, they are often sold with clauses - playing x number of games, playing for England and most importantly a sell on etc... This brings up the cost of the deal but on condition that the deal is a good one! I see it is a similar principle leasing the ground. You would say, look we will pay you more than the club is worth, but it is conditional on us making the top flight! It is good business because it mitigates your risk but gives Duchatelet a chance to recoup more of his money if they hit the jackpot and certainly stop losing money. Duchatelet, thus keeps an interest in us being successful, but we don't have to have is crazy suicidal ideas.
Now it could be the Aussies have no business sense, but I think there is a better chance that they do have. It seems logical to me that leasing the Valley on your terms, makes more sense than buying it. Whilst it worries a lot, it actually gives me more confidence about these potential buyers. It seems to me they have their heads screwed on.
And there is a lot of sporting talent in Australia. We can be a feeder club, but for the Australian Soceroos - giving their best young players exposure and learning at a higher level. Look at the catchment area! And now Brexit has happened, this is a perfect time for an Australian consortium to get involved.
Coventry is the prime example to look at, forced to leave The Ricoh Arena before because they believed the rent was far too high which is why they ended up at Northampton.
With Roland as the landlord and no emotional ties to the club that could easily be us one day. It would be different if it was someone like Murray as the landlord but not a businessman with no affiliation to us, I only see risk and no reward.
Of the top of my head I can not think of one team in England that has prospered or even stood still when they no longer owned their own ground. Most crash down the leagues and end up reforming or non-league. The only three examples where this might not be the case are.
West Ham at the Olympic stadium, but they have a ridiculously good deal and it is too early to tell.
Wimbledon at Selhurst, they maintained status but it eventually went horribly wrong for the real team who recovered once own ground was secured.
And us during the Selhurst/UP years but I would argue that that was fueled mostly by the fight to get back to the Valley.
Also, as others have said, if they are blowing £20m on the name where will they find the money to buy the land and develop a stadium in London?
I don't know if that makes it easier or harder for Roland to unbundle the club from the Valley if that was a route he was prepared to go down.
There is no good business case that I can see for leasing the Valley from Duchatelet, still less at this time for moving stadia. Unless of course you want us to downsize to permanently reflect our reduced on-pitch status.
Finally I am interested to learn that you started supporting the club at Selhurst. It might explain your perspective but you are in a small minority. We recruited very few new fans in those dismal five years. Most fans are either old enough to remember the old Valley, or were recruited in the post Selhurst uptunr.
The Valley has been our home since the early 1920's. It's true we've moved away but we've always came back 'home' again. It was only 25 years ago we fought the Greenwich Council and played on our first day back at the Valley against Portsmouth so surely a move away after that period would actually ruin this?
The only possible reason to keep the ground is either to spite the fans and/or as security against future payments contingent on football success. That being the case, charging a high rent would go against his own interests as it would materially harm changes of on-field success that would lead him seeing some of his money back. I can't see how he could possibly charge in rent any more than the bare minimum interest on the money he has "loaned" the club, so in essence he wouldn't be getting any of his money back.