Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Peter Varney asking for big crowd for Brighton match (Potential Buyers?)
Comments
-
Clutching at straws, is Warwick's knowledge in property useful for getting The Valley and SL under one entity of Roland?
Or we're turning the car park into luxury flats with a view of soon to be non-league football0 -
Presumably and probably far too optimistically those same skills could also be useful in a negotiation with Roland to get a reasonable deal to buy the Valley and Sparrows Lane for an owner who wants club and assets together?Airman Brown said:
Or because Warwick was involved in a land deal at Peterborough Utd. Needs more research but there are always people looking for angles to work. He’s apparently not a football person and not an accountant (all needs checking) but he’s been appointed finance director of a football club.Covered End said:
Because it suits.WSS said:
Why though? You've long maintained that it's worthless as it currently stands.Airman Brown said:
More concerned they are after the land.paulsturgess said:
How do they make cash out of this? How will it be worth meaningfully more in 1/2/6 months than it is now?Airman Brown said:
Unless someone is looking to flip it.DOUCHER said:4 significant appointments just announced - seems a PV takeover unlikely now ???0 -
Happy to be shown evidence otherwise but my guess is that 1) has been a finance director and 2) he has had some dealings with a PL club.se9addick said:
Warwick’s other directorship listed on Companies House is with this company, who seem to specialise in real estate:Airman Brown said:
Or because Warwick was involved in a land deal at Peterborough Utd. Needs more research but there are always people looking for angles to work. He’s apparently not a football person and not an accountant (all needs checking) but he’s been appointed finance director of a football club.Covered End said:
Because it suits.WSS said:
Why though? You've long maintained that it's worthless as it currently stands.Airman Brown said:
More concerned they are after the land.paulsturgess said:
How do they make cash out of this? How will it be worth meaningfully more in 1/2/6 months than it is now?Airman Brown said:
Unless someone is looking to flip it.DOUCHER said:4 significant appointments just announced - seems a PV takeover unlikely now ???
https://applegarthpartners.com/
That being said, the club say he is a Financial Director with experience at Premier League level.Remember we had the same guff about Wayne Mumford’s background with top clubs. He’d never worked for them - he sold them things.14 -
Any new person, no matter how many complete charlatan cnuts we’ve had come through the door in recent years, will always have a fawning ball tickling welcoming committee from the Charlton lapdog fraternity .13
-
Any attempt to redevelop into housing will be met with huge resistance and did not the Council declare it an asset of community value ?Airman Brown said:
Haven’t said it’s “worthless” - it’s just not worth what Duchatelet wants for it.WSS said:
Why though? You've long maintained that it's worthless as it currently stands.Airman Brown said:
More concerned they are after the land.paulsturgess said:
How do they make cash out of this? How will it be worth meaningfully more in 1/2/6 months than it is now?Airman Brown said:
Unless someone is looking to flip it.DOUCHER said:4 significant appointments just announced - seems a PV takeover unlikely now ???
https://www.castrust.org/2013/11/valley-asset-community-value/
That expires in 2024, so CAST needs to be engaging now to get that extended/renewed.
4 -
Warrick not Warwick.1
-
I’ve mentioned before, ACV status is not designed to deprive the legal owner of property the right to dispose of or change the purpose, of their property. It creates a fairly limited notification requirement in such circumstances, it it would stop anything from happening that couldn’t already happen.BigDiddy said:
Any attempt to redevelop into housing will be met with huge resistance and did not the Council declare it an asset of community value ?Airman Brown said:
Haven’t said it’s “worthless” - it’s just not worth what Duchatelet wants for it.WSS said:
Why though? You've long maintained that it's worthless as it currently stands.Airman Brown said:
More concerned they are after the land.paulsturgess said:
How do they make cash out of this? How will it be worth meaningfully more in 1/2/6 months than it is now?Airman Brown said:
Unless someone is looking to flip it.DOUCHER said:4 significant appointments just announced - seems a PV takeover unlikely now ???
https://www.castrust.org/2013/11/valley-asset-community-value/
That expires in 2024, so CAST needs to be engaging now to get that extended/renewed.2 -
This, this and this again. It changes nothing. But the designation in the local plan is a substantial protection.se9addick said:
I’ve mentioned before, ACV status is not designed to deprive the legal owner of property the right to dispose of or change the purpose, of their property. It creates a fairly limited notification requirement in such circumstances, it it would stop anything from happening that couldn’t already happen.BigDiddy said:
Any attempt to redevelop into housing will be met with huge resistance and did not the Council declare it an asset of community value ?Airman Brown said:
Haven’t said it’s “worthless” - it’s just not worth what Duchatelet wants for it.WSS said:
Why though? You've long maintained that it's worthless as it currently stands.Airman Brown said:
More concerned they are after the land.paulsturgess said:
How do they make cash out of this? How will it be worth meaningfully more in 1/2/6 months than it is now?Airman Brown said:
Unless someone is looking to flip it.DOUCHER said:4 significant appointments just announced - seems a PV takeover unlikely now ???
https://www.castrust.org/2013/11/valley-asset-community-value/
That expires in 2024, so CAST needs to be engaging now to get that extended/renewed.7 -
Thats good !Airman Brown said:
This, this and this again. It changes nothing. But the designation in the local plan is a substantial protection.se9addick said:
I’ve mentioned before, ACV status is not designed to deprive the legal owner of property the right to dispose of or change the purpose, of their property. It creates a fairly limited notification requirement in such circumstances, it it would stop anything from happening that couldn’t already happen.BigDiddy said:
Any attempt to redevelop into housing will be met with huge resistance and did not the Council declare it an asset of community value ?Airman Brown said:
Haven’t said it’s “worthless” - it’s just not worth what Duchatelet wants for it.WSS said:
Why though? You've long maintained that it's worthless as it currently stands.Airman Brown said:
More concerned they are after the land.paulsturgess said:
How do they make cash out of this? How will it be worth meaningfully more in 1/2/6 months than it is now?Airman Brown said:
Unless someone is looking to flip it.DOUCHER said:4 significant appointments just announced - seems a PV takeover unlikely now ???
https://www.castrust.org/2013/11/valley-asset-community-value/
That expires in 2024, so CAST needs to be engaging now to get that extended/renewed.0 -
New kitchen and bathroom, paint the walls white, new fuse board and paint the entrance door.paulsturgess said:
How do they make cash out of this? How will it be worth meaningfully more in 1/2/6 months than it is now?Airman Brown said:
Unless someone is looking to flip it.DOUCHER said:4 significant appointments just announced - seems a PV takeover unlikely now ???2 - Sponsored links:
-
Correct. It would be very very difficult and take years and years and years to stand a chance of developing the Valley for something other than "open space", which is the current designation.Airman Brown said:
This, this and this again. It changes nothing. But the designation in the local plan is a substantial protection.se9addick said:
I’ve mentioned before, ACV status is not designed to deprive the legal owner of property the right to dispose of or change the purpose, of their property. It creates a fairly limited notification requirement in such circumstances, it it would stop anything from happening that couldn’t already happen.BigDiddy said:
Any attempt to redevelop into housing will be met with huge resistance and did not the Council declare it an asset of community value ?Airman Brown said:
Haven’t said it’s “worthless” - it’s just not worth what Duchatelet wants for it.WSS said:
Why though? You've long maintained that it's worthless as it currently stands.Airman Brown said:
More concerned they are after the land.paulsturgess said:
How do they make cash out of this? How will it be worth meaningfully more in 1/2/6 months than it is now?Airman Brown said:
Unless someone is looking to flip it.DOUCHER said:4 significant appointments just announced - seems a PV takeover unlikely now ???
https://www.castrust.org/2013/11/valley-asset-community-value/
That expires in 2024, so CAST needs to be engaging now to get that extended/renewed.
As long as Charlton Athletic still exist (which the way things have been going may not be that long..), I think it would be nigh on impossible to get permission to develop the Valley for anything else e.g. flats (except maybe a few flats on the corner or something, a bit like Orient), but even that is unlikely as it stands. (Unless those involved have a site lined up as part of the deal that we are moving to and they'd have to have that basically in place, i.e. new stadium ready to go.)
Given the role the club has in the community as well, and the VAST objection to something like this if somebody went for it, I really struggle to see it happening unless we are liquidated and even then the prospect of an imminent phoenix club would be meaningful and the fact that as recently as this season we've had home crowds of 15,000+ (this is one scenario where those fake crowds would help a save the valley campaign) shows clearly there is a huge demand for a Charlton Athletic stadium in Greenwich.
This doesn't stop me stressing out about it, but I do struggle to see the property potential of the Valley (and similarly Sparrows Lane) unless somebody had a vastly cheaper site lined up for a replacement stadium that would still leave profit after buying said land, building a new football stadium on it and then building houses on the Valley. And quite frankly I think it's highly, highly unlikely one exists, almost certainly not in the Borough of Greenwich5 -
I agree with this assessment.paulsturgess said:
Correct. It would be very very difficult and take years and years and years to stand a chance of developing the Valley for something other than "open space", which is the current designation.Airman Brown said:
This, this and this again. It changes nothing. But the designation in the local plan is a substantial protection.se9addick said:
I’ve mentioned before, ACV status is not designed to deprive the legal owner of property the right to dispose of or change the purpose, of their property. It creates a fairly limited notification requirement in such circumstances, it it would stop anything from happening that couldn’t already happen.BigDiddy said:
Any attempt to redevelop into housing will be met with huge resistance and did not the Council declare it an asset of community value ?Airman Brown said:
Haven’t said it’s “worthless” - it’s just not worth what Duchatelet wants for it.WSS said:
Why though? You've long maintained that it's worthless as it currently stands.Airman Brown said:
More concerned they are after the land.paulsturgess said:
How do they make cash out of this? How will it be worth meaningfully more in 1/2/6 months than it is now?Airman Brown said:
Unless someone is looking to flip it.DOUCHER said:4 significant appointments just announced - seems a PV takeover unlikely now ???
https://www.castrust.org/2013/11/valley-asset-community-value/
That expires in 2024, so CAST needs to be engaging now to get that extended/renewed.
As long as Charlton Athletic still exist (which the way things have been going may not be that long..), I think it would be nigh on impossible to get permission to develop the Valley for anything else e.g. flats (except maybe a few flats on the corner or something, a bit like Orient), but even that is unlikely as it stands. (Unless those involved have a site lined up as part of the deal that we are moving to and they'd have to have that basically in place, i.e. new stadium ready to go.)
Given the role the club has in the community as well, and the VAST objection to something like this if somebody went for it, I really struggle to see it happening unless we are liquidated and even then the prospect of an imminent phoenix club would be meaningful and the fact that as recently as this season we've had home crowds of 15,000+ (this is one scenario where those fake crowds would help a save the valley campaign) shows clearly there is a huge demand for a Charlton Athletic stadium in Greenwich.
This doesn't stop me stressing out about it, but I do struggle to see the property potential of the Valley (and similarly Sparrows Lane) unless somebody had a vastly cheaper site lined up for a replacement stadium that would still leave profit after buying said land, building a new football stadium on it and then building houses on the Valley. And quite frankly I think it's highly, highly unlikely one exists, almost certainly not in the Borough of Greenwich
Sparrows might be easier to develop.0 -
Bad smells coming out of the valley tonight?0
-
.0
-
Sparrows Lane is actually arguably even less likely than the Valley as its essentially green belt. Even if we moved to a whole new training ground in the middle of nowhere in Kent and left Sparrows Lane just sitting there as empty fields I still don't think they'd let you build flats on it, maybe a handful on/around the clubhouse building, but it wouldn't suddenly be some treasure trove of hundreds of half a million quid flats.BigDiddy said:
I agree with this assessment.paulsturgess said:
Correct. It would be very very difficult and take years and years and years to stand a chance of developing the Valley for something other than "open space", which is the current designation.Airman Brown said:
This, this and this again. It changes nothing. But the designation in the local plan is a substantial protection.se9addick said:
I’ve mentioned before, ACV status is not designed to deprive the legal owner of property the right to dispose of or change the purpose, of their property. It creates a fairly limited notification requirement in such circumstances, it it would stop anything from happening that couldn’t already happen.BigDiddy said:
Any attempt to redevelop into housing will be met with huge resistance and did not the Council declare it an asset of community value ?Airman Brown said:
Haven’t said it’s “worthless” - it’s just not worth what Duchatelet wants for it.WSS said:
Why though? You've long maintained that it's worthless as it currently stands.Airman Brown said:
More concerned they are after the land.paulsturgess said:
How do they make cash out of this? How will it be worth meaningfully more in 1/2/6 months than it is now?Airman Brown said:
Unless someone is looking to flip it.DOUCHER said:4 significant appointments just announced - seems a PV takeover unlikely now ???
https://www.castrust.org/2013/11/valley-asset-community-value/
That expires in 2024, so CAST needs to be engaging now to get that extended/renewed.
As long as Charlton Athletic still exist (which the way things have been going may not be that long..), I think it would be nigh on impossible to get permission to develop the Valley for anything else e.g. flats (except maybe a few flats on the corner or something, a bit like Orient), but even that is unlikely as it stands. (Unless those involved have a site lined up as part of the deal that we are moving to and they'd have to have that basically in place, i.e. new stadium ready to go.)
Given the role the club has in the community as well, and the VAST objection to something like this if somebody went for it, I really struggle to see it happening unless we are liquidated and even then the prospect of an imminent phoenix club would be meaningful and the fact that as recently as this season we've had home crowds of 15,000+ (this is one scenario where those fake crowds would help a save the valley campaign) shows clearly there is a huge demand for a Charlton Athletic stadium in Greenwich.
This doesn't stop me stressing out about it, but I do struggle to see the property potential of the Valley (and similarly Sparrows Lane) unless somebody had a vastly cheaper site lined up for a replacement stadium that would still leave profit after buying said land, building a new football stadium on it and then building houses on the Valley. And quite frankly I think it's highly, highly unlikely one exists, almost certainly not in the Borough of Greenwich
Sparrows might be easier to develop.
The only scenario I can see is a proper long game of just sitting on the Valley for years and years, waiting and hoping the club dissolves, no meaningful phoenix emerges and eventually you'd probably be able to do something with it years and years down the line. Which is the worry with the situation Roland's managed to navigate himself into.1 -
Why would a housing developer do that? Surely they would just buy land that can be developed now and make their money nowpaulsturgess said:
Sparrows Lane is actually arguably even less likely than the Valley as its essentially green belt. Even if we moved to a whole new training ground in the middle of nowhere in Kent and left Sparrows Lane just sitting there as empty fields I still don't think they'd let you build flats on it, maybe a handful on/around the clubhouse building, but it wouldn't suddenly be some treasure trove of hundreds of half a million quid flats.BigDiddy said:
I agree with this assessment.paulsturgess said:
Correct. It would be very very difficult and take years and years and years to stand a chance of developing the Valley for something other than "open space", which is the current designation.Airman Brown said:
This, this and this again. It changes nothing. But the designation in the local plan is a substantial protection.se9addick said:
I’ve mentioned before, ACV status is not designed to deprive the legal owner of property the right to dispose of or change the purpose, of their property. It creates a fairly limited notification requirement in such circumstances, it it would stop anything from happening that couldn’t already happen.BigDiddy said:
Any attempt to redevelop into housing will be met with huge resistance and did not the Council declare it an asset of community value ?Airman Brown said:
Haven’t said it’s “worthless” - it’s just not worth what Duchatelet wants for it.WSS said:
Why though? You've long maintained that it's worthless as it currently stands.Airman Brown said:
More concerned they are after the land.paulsturgess said:
How do they make cash out of this? How will it be worth meaningfully more in 1/2/6 months than it is now?Airman Brown said:
Unless someone is looking to flip it.DOUCHER said:4 significant appointments just announced - seems a PV takeover unlikely now ???
https://www.castrust.org/2013/11/valley-asset-community-value/
That expires in 2024, so CAST needs to be engaging now to get that extended/renewed.
As long as Charlton Athletic still exist (which the way things have been going may not be that long..), I think it would be nigh on impossible to get permission to develop the Valley for anything else e.g. flats (except maybe a few flats on the corner or something, a bit like Orient), but even that is unlikely as it stands. (Unless those involved have a site lined up as part of the deal that we are moving to and they'd have to have that basically in place, i.e. new stadium ready to go.)
Given the role the club has in the community as well, and the VAST objection to something like this if somebody went for it, I really struggle to see it happening unless we are liquidated and even then the prospect of an imminent phoenix club would be meaningful and the fact that as recently as this season we've had home crowds of 15,000+ (this is one scenario where those fake crowds would help a save the valley campaign) shows clearly there is a huge demand for a Charlton Athletic stadium in Greenwich.
This doesn't stop me stressing out about it, but I do struggle to see the property potential of the Valley (and similarly Sparrows Lane) unless somebody had a vastly cheaper site lined up for a replacement stadium that would still leave profit after buying said land, building a new football stadium on it and then building houses on the Valley. And quite frankly I think it's highly, highly unlikely one exists, almost certainly not in the Borough of Greenwich
Sparrows might be easier to develop.
The only scenario I can see is a proper long game of just sitting on the Valley for years and years, waiting and hoping the club dissolves, no meaningful phoenix emerges and eventually you'd probably be able to do something with it years and years down the line. Which is the worry with the situation Roland's managed to navigate himself into.0 -
Give it 24 hoursMendonca In Asdas said:Bad smells coming out of the valley tonight?0 -
Airman Brown said:
Or because Warwick was involved in a land deal at Peterborough Utd. Needs more research but there are always people looking for angles to work. He’s apparently not a football person and not an accountant (all needs checking) but he’s been appointed finance director of a football club.Covered End said:
Because it suits.WSS said:
Why though? You've long maintained that it's worthless as it currently stands.Airman Brown said:
More concerned they are after the land.paulsturgess said:
How do they make cash out of this? How will it be worth meaningfully more in 1/2/6 months than it is now?Airman Brown said:
Unless someone is looking to flip it.DOUCHER said:4 significant appointments just announced - seems a PV takeover unlikely now ???
Also holds himself out as a "banker" on co house. Not on FCA Register so not with any UK regulated banks if in a position of any relative seniority.
This absolutely stinks. Everything about all of this.1 -
oohaahmortimer said:Any new person, no matter how many complete charlatan cnuts we’ve had come through the door in recent years, will always have a fawning ball tickling welcoming committee from the Charlton lapdog fraternity .
Fucking disgusting isn't it. Pol Pot could march in wearing a Palace shirt and hanging out the back of Floyd or Harvey and some would say let's give him a chance because he gets things done and at least the football might improve and he's promised to knock tuppence off bovril if you buy 2 for a tenner.
Anyone who cannot see this isn't major cause for concern hasn't been paying attention the past few years.16 -
There are plenty of families in London who own big chunks of green belt/difficult to develop land and are happy to sit and wait it out for decades to get change of use if they can buy the land for the right price to start with. That is on RD.Todds_right_hook said:
Why would a housing developer do that? Surely they would just buy land that can be developed now and make their money nowpaulsturgess said:
Sparrows Lane is actually arguably even less likely than the Valley as its essentially green belt. Even if we moved to a whole new training ground in the middle of nowhere in Kent and left Sparrows Lane just sitting there as empty fields I still don't think they'd let you build flats on it, maybe a handful on/around the clubhouse building, but it wouldn't suddenly be some treasure trove of hundreds of half a million quid flats.BigDiddy said:
I agree with this assessment.paulsturgess said:
Correct. It would be very very difficult and take years and years and years to stand a chance of developing the Valley for something other than "open space", which is the current designation.Airman Brown said:
This, this and this again. It changes nothing. But the designation in the local plan is a substantial protection.se9addick said:
I’ve mentioned before, ACV status is not designed to deprive the legal owner of property the right to dispose of or change the purpose, of their property. It creates a fairly limited notification requirement in such circumstances, it it would stop anything from happening that couldn’t already happen.BigDiddy said:
Any attempt to redevelop into housing will be met with huge resistance and did not the Council declare it an asset of community value ?Airman Brown said:
Haven’t said it’s “worthless” - it’s just not worth what Duchatelet wants for it.WSS said:
Why though? You've long maintained that it's worthless as it currently stands.Airman Brown said:
More concerned they are after the land.paulsturgess said:
How do they make cash out of this? How will it be worth meaningfully more in 1/2/6 months than it is now?Airman Brown said:
Unless someone is looking to flip it.DOUCHER said:4 significant appointments just announced - seems a PV takeover unlikely now ???
https://www.castrust.org/2013/11/valley-asset-community-value/
That expires in 2024, so CAST needs to be engaging now to get that extended/renewed.
As long as Charlton Athletic still exist (which the way things have been going may not be that long..), I think it would be nigh on impossible to get permission to develop the Valley for anything else e.g. flats (except maybe a few flats on the corner or something, a bit like Orient), but even that is unlikely as it stands. (Unless those involved have a site lined up as part of the deal that we are moving to and they'd have to have that basically in place, i.e. new stadium ready to go.)
Given the role the club has in the community as well, and the VAST objection to something like this if somebody went for it, I really struggle to see it happening unless we are liquidated and even then the prospect of an imminent phoenix club would be meaningful and the fact that as recently as this season we've had home crowds of 15,000+ (this is one scenario where those fake crowds would help a save the valley campaign) shows clearly there is a huge demand for a Charlton Athletic stadium in Greenwich.
This doesn't stop me stressing out about it, but I do struggle to see the property potential of the Valley (and similarly Sparrows Lane) unless somebody had a vastly cheaper site lined up for a replacement stadium that would still leave profit after buying said land, building a new football stadium on it and then building houses on the Valley. And quite frankly I think it's highly, highly unlikely one exists, almost certainly not in the Borough of Greenwich
Sparrows might be easier to develop.
The only scenario I can see is a proper long game of just sitting on the Valley for years and years, waiting and hoping the club dissolves, no meaningful phoenix emerges and eventually you'd probably be able to do something with it years and years down the line. Which is the worry with the situation Roland's managed to navigate himself into.
there are also plenty of house builders with huge landbanks, much of which is highly speculative positions, usually via an option. Sadly The Valley would be quite appealing to many.
Personal, unresearched view is that Ed Warrick worries me the most of the new names. There are plenty of money orientated property spins about. Just look at his Applegarth website which essentially tells you naff all about him and his business but claims to have been involved in £Bn’s of deals.0 - Sponsored links:
-
I’ve no idea whether this is good or bad and the valley redevelopment concern would surely be in place with PV’s lot of Barclay were involved ?? Positives: The fact this is being done in time for some transfer window action. Scott seems to be well regarded. Negative: could be ESI mark 2.Less chance of putting the ‘band’ back together possibly than if PV was involved0
-
But these people aren't just buying the land, they are buying a football club that will cost them £8m a year to run until they get to develop the ground.Athletico Charlton said:
There are plenty of families in London who own big chunks of green belt/difficult to develop land and are happy to sit and wait it out for decades to get change of use if they can buy the land for the right price to start with. That is on RD.Todds_right_hook said:
Why would a housing developer do that? Surely they would just buy land that can be developed now and make their money nowpaulsturgess said:
Sparrows Lane is actually arguably even less likely than the Valley as its essentially green belt. Even if we moved to a whole new training ground in the middle of nowhere in Kent and left Sparrows Lane just sitting there as empty fields I still don't think they'd let you build flats on it, maybe a handful on/around the clubhouse building, but it wouldn't suddenly be some treasure trove of hundreds of half a million quid flats.BigDiddy said:
I agree with this assessment.paulsturgess said:
Correct. It would be very very difficult and take years and years and years to stand a chance of developing the Valley for something other than "open space", which is the current designation.Airman Brown said:
This, this and this again. It changes nothing. But the designation in the local plan is a substantial protection.se9addick said:
I’ve mentioned before, ACV status is not designed to deprive the legal owner of property the right to dispose of or change the purpose, of their property. It creates a fairly limited notification requirement in such circumstances, it it would stop anything from happening that couldn’t already happen.BigDiddy said:
Any attempt to redevelop into housing will be met with huge resistance and did not the Council declare it an asset of community value ?Airman Brown said:
Haven’t said it’s “worthless” - it’s just not worth what Duchatelet wants for it.WSS said:
Why though? You've long maintained that it's worthless as it currently stands.Airman Brown said:
More concerned they are after the land.paulsturgess said:
How do they make cash out of this? How will it be worth meaningfully more in 1/2/6 months than it is now?Airman Brown said:
Unless someone is looking to flip it.DOUCHER said:4 significant appointments just announced - seems a PV takeover unlikely now ???
https://www.castrust.org/2013/11/valley-asset-community-value/
That expires in 2024, so CAST needs to be engaging now to get that extended/renewed.
As long as Charlton Athletic still exist (which the way things have been going may not be that long..), I think it would be nigh on impossible to get permission to develop the Valley for anything else e.g. flats (except maybe a few flats on the corner or something, a bit like Orient), but even that is unlikely as it stands. (Unless those involved have a site lined up as part of the deal that we are moving to and they'd have to have that basically in place, i.e. new stadium ready to go.)
Given the role the club has in the community as well, and the VAST objection to something like this if somebody went for it, I really struggle to see it happening unless we are liquidated and even then the prospect of an imminent phoenix club would be meaningful and the fact that as recently as this season we've had home crowds of 15,000+ (this is one scenario where those fake crowds would help a save the valley campaign) shows clearly there is a huge demand for a Charlton Athletic stadium in Greenwich.
This doesn't stop me stressing out about it, but I do struggle to see the property potential of the Valley (and similarly Sparrows Lane) unless somebody had a vastly cheaper site lined up for a replacement stadium that would still leave profit after buying said land, building a new football stadium on it and then building houses on the Valley. And quite frankly I think it's highly, highly unlikely one exists, almost certainly not in the Borough of Greenwich
Sparrows might be easier to develop.
The only scenario I can see is a proper long game of just sitting on the Valley for years and years, waiting and hoping the club dissolves, no meaningful phoenix emerges and eventually you'd probably be able to do something with it years and years down the line. Which is the worry with the situation Roland's managed to navigate himself into.
there are also plenty of house builders with huge landbanks, much of which is highly speculative positions, usually via an option. Sadly The Valley would be quite appealing to many.
Personal, unresearched view is that Ed Warrick worries me the most of the new names. There are plenty of money orientated property spins about. Just look at his Applegarth website which essentially tells you naff all about him and his business but claims to have been involved in £Bn’s of deals.I appreciate that they can liquidate the club to save that money but if they are spending the rumoured £10m plus just to buy the clubs, then covering wages etc until liquidation, it reduces profits from the development. My point is that there must be other land available in London which would be more suited for development, if that is their end game.4 -
I think the thing for me is who are we trying to impress this evening?
Methven has said his lot are not yet decided on future investment and we hear PV has also spoken to/advised him.
So was the call to arms tonight to impress Methvens people or A Nother?
Is Methven bad and PV has another group in mind who are good??
Would be good to know whose side we should be on?0 -
Ricks confirmed that PV has nothing to do with Methven.carly burn said:I think the thing for me is who are we trying to impress this evening?
Methven has said his lot are not yet decided on future investment and we hear PV has also spoken to/advised him.
So was the call to arms tonight to impress Methvens people or A Nother?
Is Methven bad and PV has another group in mind who are good??
Would be good to know whose side we should be on?"PV isn’t involved with, advising or otherwise assisting Charlie Methven. Methven’s comments are presumably designed for children’s bedtime stories."1 -
Home turnout for tonight not looking anywhere near as encouraging as hoped :-(0
-
how many we sold?AFKABartram said:Home turnout for tonight not looking anywhere near as encouraging as hoped :-(0 -
Just found out I have no trains home after the game tonight. I'll still go but won't be looking forward to a convoluted journey home.1
-
You must need to change a few times to get to Bangkok.Bangkokaddick said:Just found out I have no trains home after the game tonight. I'll still go but won't be looking forward to a convoluted journey home.12 -
Leave when we're four goals down - you might be home by half time
8 -
Don’t know but the East looks fairly empty, as does the North Lower on the sides, both quadrants are closed and the West Upper is all Brighton. North Upper and West Lower are well supported.paulsturgess said:
how many we sold?AFKABartram said:Home turnout for tonight not looking anywhere near as encouraging as hoped :-(
15 quid adults, cheap kids tickets in school holiday and most attractive opposition in years. With the rally cries, hoped we’d draw better support2
