Barclay is a Chelsea fan and would only be interested if it included The Valley ans Sparrows Lane
alo remember he mase a lot of money in real estate
whilst he has a lot of money would you not be worried hes looking to maximise the land value
I imagine he would see Sparrows Lane as the development angle, big plot of land in residential area - no idea how easy it would be to get planning, but a lot of my developer clients would look at Sparrows, and try a buy land adjacent to it to get a really big site
The profit in £££’s from building there would be huge
He would then simply buy some land somewhere a lot cheaper and move training ground there
Do Charlton fans have emotional attachment to Sparrows - doubt it (I don’t)
The Valley however, that’s a different ball game when it comes to emotional attachment, and I agree that The Valley has no development angle
What makes the valley ‘logistically’ difficult to develop?
I always thought it was partially access - not brilliant from the Woolwich Road and even worse from the village, and also what might be 'under' the current stands. We know there is a bunch of stuff under the East / AC, but what might lurk from pre-1919 days? I'm sure it was used as a general dumping ground post quarry and before football. Could be some costly clean up expense.
Fascinating table from Bob. Ashley bought the club in 2007 and sold it in 2021 so he was the only owner during the period that the table has been calculated. If correct then the table suggests Newcastle United have the 10th highest transfer budget deficit at £181,840,000. If true then it completely contradicts the earlier post (forgive me I can't recall who posted it) which contained a graphic stating that Newcastle had a transfer budget surplus during his ownership.
Unless of course he sold loads of players during the period 2007-2010?
That's a net spend of less than 13m a season for a club that probably generate more than twice that just in season ticket and shirt sales. So he was basically pocketing a large % of the tv money hence why the fans were pissed off.
The Valley is also listed as an asset of community value by Greenwich Council
Don’t wish to denigrate the efforts of those involved in that but (as a councillor I am aware) that is really pretty irrelevant in terms of an asset the size and cost of The Valley. It’s only advantage is a six-month delay in a sale of the land. It does not give you any other rights or protections at all - no right to buy the asset, no protection from change of use. The designation of the land in the area’s adopted local plan is much more important.
Fascinating table from Bob. Ashley bought the club in 2007 and sold it in 2021 so he was the only owner during the period that the table has been calculated. If correct then the table suggests Newcastle United have the 10th highest transfer budget deficit at £181,840,000. If true then it completely contradicts the earlier post (forgive me I can't recall who posted it) which contained a graphic stating that Newcastle had a transfer budget surplus during his ownership.
Unless of course he sold loads of players during the period 2007-2010?
That's a net spend of less than 13m a season for a club that probably generate more than twice that just in season ticket and shirt sales. So he was basically pocketing a large % of the tv money hence why the fans were pissed off.
They may have sold £26m worth of shirts and STs but not profit!
Here's an interesting article - doesn't really indicate that Ashley was rinsing the club.
The Valley is also listed as an asset of community value by Greenwich Council
Don’t wish to denigrate the efforts of those involved in that but (as a councillor I am aware) that is really pretty irrelevant in terms of an asset the size and cost of The Valley. It’s only advantage is a six-month delay in a sale of the land. It goes not give you any other rights or protections at all - no right to buy the asset, no protection from change of use. The designation of the land in area’s adopted local plan is much more important.
The Valley is also listed as an asset of community value by Greenwich Council
Don’t wish to denigrate the efforts of those involved in that but (as a councillor I am aware) that is really pretty irrelevant in terms of an asset the size and cost of The Valley. It’s only advantage is a six-month delay in a sale of the land. It does not give you any other rights or protections at all - no right to buy the asset, no protection from change of use. The designation of the land in the area’s adopted local plan is much more important.
And I wonder if the longer we spend at the bottom of the third tier, the less relevant and important we become to the local authority?
The Valley is also listed as an asset of community value by Greenwich Council
Don’t wish to denigrate the efforts of those involved in that but (as a councillor I am aware) that is really pretty irrelevant in terms of an asset the size and cost of The Valley. It’s only advantage is a six-month delay in a sale of the land. It does not give you any other rights or protections at all - no right to buy the asset, no protection from change of use. The designation of the land in the area’s adopted local plan is much more important.
And I wonder if the longer we spend at the bottom of the third tier, the less relevant and important we become to the local authority?
I’m sure the council would prefer we were successful, because it benefits the economy and local prestige, but I don’t think it will affect their attitude to the land designation. It’s also not the case they can just do what they like - there is an exhaustive process including statutory consultation and independent examination for any changes. Of course there is policy pressure for housing which is also a consideration.
I’m confident the council will extend the Asset of Community Value status when we next have to reapply (early 2024 if I recall rightly) but ACV status is a symbolic acknowledgment of the importance of the Valley to fabric of the Borough. That doesn’t mean it isn’t worth having, it definitely is, it just isn’t designed to protect against the situation where someone wanted to sell or redevelop the land. It’s important people understand that.
Simon Hallet the owner of table topping Plymouth Argyle who are now hitting genuine gates of over 15,000, has a net worth of $83 Millon. I would think this is less than a third of TS.
Kit manager Wayne Baldacchino has resigned and is serving his notice. Ben Mehmet, who I believe was kit manager for the U21s, recently quit and has already gone.
On the face of it there are questions to be asked, but I would rather somebody with a brain asked them and not some tweeter suffering from hysterical look-at-me ism. "Die on my hill"? FFS
On the face of it there are questions to be asked, but I would rather somebody with a brain asked them and not some tweeter suffering from hysterical look-at-me ism.
When the academy is probably the only thing within the club that will make him money (or rather reduce his losses), it's absolutely baffling why he'd choose to cut funding.
This might very easily result in promising 13/14/15 year olds leaving for other clubs.
Comments
Maybe Barclay showing interest points RD to think he does have a more valuable asset after all - but then even stranger he would not engage.
I'm more inclined to conclude he only had a passing interest and that's that.
The profit in £££’s from building there would be huge
He would then simply buy some land somewhere a lot cheaper and move training ground there
Do Charlton fans have emotional attachment to Sparrows - doubt it (I don’t)
The Valley however, that’s a different ball game when it comes to emotional attachment, and I agree that The Valley has no development angle
Yeah selling to a property developer probably would make Roland think twice
Here's an interesting article - doesn't really indicate that Ashley was rinsing the club.
https://www.business-live.co.uk/enterprise/newcastle-united-tumbles-54m-operating-21261726
https://www.castrust.org/2022/10/cast-writes-to-thomas-sandgaard-with-concerns/
Thoughts?
shit show
shameful
"Die on my hill"? FFS
Agree with that sentiment
This might very easily result in promising 13/14/15 year olds leaving for other clubs.