It's worth mentioning here that Sparrows Lane is the only League club training ground with a London postcode. Every other team (even the Spanners) have training grounds in the proper suburbs like Bromley or Beckenham or Hertfordshire or Surrey. My understanding is that the land can't easily be converted but then again, where else would the team/academy train? I'd imagine it's quite important to the Academy to train somewhere relatively accessible and switching to further out in Kent where the land might be cheaper may end up being a false economy.
There was a farm just outside West Malling that was seriously looked at as a possibility for a new training ground a few years back.
It's worth mentioning here that Sparrows Lane is the only League club training ground with a London postcode. Every other team (even the Spanners) have training grounds in the proper suburbs like Bromley or Beckenham or Hertfordshire or Surrey.
Love learning something everyday. And im not being sarky i honestly never knew that fact.
I was told months ago that palace where after sparrows lane dont know how true that was but it was by someone at the Rugby club who also told me about them taking Charlton to court
I can not believe Roland would still want to own the training ground, as he can do nothing else with it than let Charlton use it. It must mean the new owners are short of cash and hope to raise more over the next 6 months if the above is true.
Why ‘must’ it mean they are short of cash?
I have bought stuff in installments because I did not want to use my invested money.
Maybe they wanted to get the main deal done so they did not miss the transfer window and complications with the training ground would have slowed things down?
Maybe the price of the training ground changes if we get relegated and this was a simple way to accommodate a possible change in price?
Too many maybes to worry about for me. It is what it is. Transfers are the only thing that matter at the moment.
Getting the deal done quick to fit in the Jan transfer window and worry about checks on training ground development happen in due course (effecting a price) would be my guess.
People need to calm down a bit. There could be a number of legitimate reasons.
I was told months ago that palace where after sparrows lane dont know how true that was but it was by someone at the Rugby club who also told me about them taking Charlton to court
Palace are building a new training ground in Beckenham where Goals/Fitness First/Gambados is/used to be so I doubt that is true.
The rest of that report could be - ESI have confirmed they own The Valley as part of their takeover and have a commitment to buy the club’s training ground within the next six months.. once some remedial work and legal matters are resolved.
If ESI were eager to get control of the Club in order to start changing things, they maybe didn't want problems at SL holding up their bigger plans for the rest of the Club. Ever the optimist....
I have a friend who is a integral part of Dulwich Hamlet. They went through very difficult times with the hedge fund that owned them. His comment to me- careful what you wish for.
There could be all sorts of reasons. They may well have an agreement for sale in place (in fact that sounds the most likely scenario) but either can't yet complete because title checks aren't complete or don't want to complete yet for tax reasons. You can't "commit" to acquire something unless you know that you can force the purchase through i.e. you have a legal contract requiring the current owner to sell.
There maybe many positive reasons why Sparrows Lane hasn't been purchased yet IE a wish to submit a different planning application perhaps with links to multi million grant funding that RD dismissed, perhaps a dispute over the rugby club to be resolved.
There are also more negative ways to view it. No money, a property play, make your guesses here.
The way it has been released into the public domain, tagged on to a "bigger" story (not so IMHO) about Taylor does not instill confidence.
It does, perhaps, answer the question about why the completion of the takeover took longer than many expected.
There maybe many positive reasons why Sparrows Lane hasn't been purchased yet IE a wish to submit a different planning application perhaps with links to multi million grant funding that RD dismissed, perhaps a dispute over the rugby club to be resolved.
There are also more negative ways to view it. No money, a property play, make your guesses here.
The way it has been released into the public domain, tagged on to a "bigger" story (not so IMHO) about Taylor does not instill confidence.
It does, perhaps, answer the question about why the completion of the takeover took longer than many expected.
Who laughed? This constant who guessed right and who guessed wrong is nauseating
So they have just bought Baton then. This could get messy.
No. Baton own both CA Football and Holdings companies. The Holding co own the Valley and Training ground. More likely just a delay so they can concentrate on footballing priorities and then complete in the summer at agreed price.
But this means that the legal entity that ties the property and the football club has been split up.
How is that even possible without the trust being notified under the terms of the ACV?
If the training ground was slit off, the owner of the Valley would still be the holdings company. So nothing changed to notify?
So the training ground has become an asset of another company? It's getting quite convoluted this, when they could have just bought Baton and had the lot.
ESI own the club and the valley. That's good enough for me. Now it appears they have six months in which to come to an agreement to buy the training ground. If they do then great. If they don't we train somewhere else.not a huge problem imo.
This. It appears that the new chaps arent ones to be messed around with over the negotiation table. RD would have said he wanted X amount for the training ground. They have looked at it and thought it is over valued and could get better elsewhere especially if they with to invest in it. The same goes for Taylor. Here are is offer these are our terms, this is the deadline, if you dont sign it we will move on without you end of.
It's worth mentioning here that Sparrows Lane is the only League club training ground with a London postcode. Every other team (even the Spanners) have training grounds in the proper suburbs like Bromley or Beckenham or Hertfordshire or Surrey. My understanding is that the land can't easily be converted but then again, where else would the team/academy train? I'd imagine it's quite important to the Academy to train somewhere relatively accessible and switching to further out in Kent where the land might be cheaper may end up being a false economy.
There was a farm just outside West Malling that was seriously looked at as a possibility for a new training ground a few years back.
Now Kings Hill Sports Club (near West Malling). When they were developing the site Charlton were definitely going to be a part of it and then withdrew.
When we were in the Premiership a few players lived here when the work began so it all seemed good.
All the pitches have proper drainage, 4g floodlit pitch, good facilities. Not used during the day. Goes to show that there are alternatives. May not be perfect as is, but has plenty of scope to be expanded.
I was genuinely concerned that some fans were to have their raison d'être in life denied them, but this is further proof that ESI want all fans to be included and catered for in their plans and so have manufactured this non-purchase of training ground to satisfy the whims and demands of all the catastrophisers, miserablists and conspiracy theorists.
There is planning consent for larger facilities. There is no likelihood of the latest application being rejected because it is a reduction on what has already been agreed. In planning terms it’s virtually impossible for the council to reject it, because the principle of the development, location and larger scale are all established by the earlier consent.
The council would have to demonstrate significant additional harm to the Metropolitan Open Land from the changes, which is nonsense.
Explaining this needs to be top of Matt Southall's 'to do' list today. He needs to remove any doubts about the scale, ambition and intention of this takeover.
Comments
The rest of that report could be -
ESI have confirmed they own The Valley as part of their takeover and have a commitment to buy the club’s training ground within the next six months.. once some remedial work and legal matters are resolved.
If ESI were eager to get control of the Club in order to start changing things, they maybe didn't want problems at SL holding up their bigger plans for the rest of the Club.
Ever the optimist....
His comment to me- careful what you wish for.
Not laughing now are you? : - )
1 Who owns the club?
2 What's the business plan?
3 How is the plan being funded?
4 What are the plans for the Valley?
5 What are the plans for the training ground?
6 What's the exit strategy?
There maybe many positive reasons why Sparrows Lane hasn't been purchased yet IE a wish to submit a different planning application perhaps with links to multi million grant funding that RD dismissed, perhaps a dispute over the rugby club to be resolved.
There are also more negative ways to view it. No money, a property play, make your guesses here.
The way it has been released into the public domain, tagged on to a "bigger" story (not so IMHO) about Taylor does not instill confidence.
It does, perhaps, answer the question about why the completion of the takeover took longer than many expected.
The same goes for Taylor. Here are is offer these are our terms, this is the deadline, if you dont sign it we will move on without you end of.
Makes sense
.... FOR NOW!
When we were in the Premiership a few players lived here when the work began so it all seemed good.
All the pitches have proper drainage, 4g floodlit pitch, good facilities. Not used during the day. Goes to show that there are alternatives. May not be perfect as is, but has plenty of scope to be expanded.
The council would have to demonstrate significant additional harm to the Metropolitan Open Land from the changes, which is nonsense.