Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
1576, Dartford Grammar School is founded.5
-
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.AFKABartram said:
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.PeterGage said:
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.Taxi_Lad said:
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.PeterGage said:
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 😎Gillis said:PeterGage said: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.
A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
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.17 -
I'd have posted that if you hadnthappyvalley said:1576, Dartford Grammar School is founded.0 -
Roland will continue to fund us to the bare minimum and nobody can force him to sell. He is the only person owed money here and he's charging interest on it.
Anybody can see our squad will be ripped apart at the end of the season, but the ELF won't do anything until we can't fulfil our fixtures, but there'll always be a pro football who wants to play football for Charlton.We have an idiot for an owner, but we are still above 67 other teams in the Football League!
1 -
Thanks @AFKABartram for your balanced views, which deserve a response.AFKABartram said:
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.PeterGage said:
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.Taxi_Lad said:
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.PeterGage said:
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 😎Gillis said:PeterGage said: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.
A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
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.
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 day7 -
But new owners will be open to scrutiny by fans, and the fact that they’re paying their £25 won’t alter that.PeterGage said:
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.Taxi_Lad said:
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.PeterGage said:
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 😎Gillis said:PeterGage said: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.
A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.0 -
I don't agree with some of the assumptions people make about the cost being absolutely minimum to keep the club going. I also don't agree that RD actively doesn't want the club to get promoted. What he does want, God only knows, I don't even think RD knows himself.
If he wanted to reduce the costs, below what they are now, he could have done so quite easily. Selling BFG in the summer for example.
If he was scared of promotion we won't have brought any players in in January, this season or last. Was it enough, no.
Why did he sanction the signing of Taylor, who I assume is on a good wedge for league 1? A redline for Bowyer? If Lee had walked over it 20 other people would be queuing up for the job.
I would hazard a guess that he, and his "advisors" feel that the wage bill, and calibre of players, is sufficient to "challenge for promotion". If we had signed another striker in January it wouldn't guarantee us promotion, neither has not signing one end any chance.
I think that this is where people like RD, Mike Ashley and Alan Sugar struggle with understanding football. How much do you have to spend to guarantee anything in football? These people make calculated risks everyday and it just doesn't work the same in football. Sunderland spent £4 million on a striker, he may score the goal that gets them promoted, equally he could miss the deciding penalty in the play off final it's no guarantee.
Equally he isn't running a player farm as we haven't signed any young players to develop and sell on since Page and JFC.
The more I think about it the less clear it becomes. What ever he is trying to do he isn't doing it very well is he?2 -
I can see some people disliking the idea of being taken by an Indian consortium. I reckon there would be a fair bit of argy baji.
Personally I'd recommend people not get too excited, just korma down.1 -
What is the end game ?0
-
How is he pocketing anything? The club runs at a massive loss.Airman Brown said:
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.AFKABartram said:
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.PeterGage said:
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.Taxi_Lad said:
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.PeterGage said:
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 😎Gillis said:PeterGage said: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.
A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
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.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Agreed, but there are differing levels of "scrutiny". We all seem to agree that Roly's level of scrunity is of the highest order for the way he has ran the club for the last 4 year's plus. Hence my 3pm and 5pm comments, which I stick by.JamesSeed said:
But new owners will be open to scrutiny by fans, and the fact that they’re paying their £25 won’t alter that.PeterGage said:
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.Taxi_Lad said:
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.PeterGage said:
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 😎Gillis said:PeterGage said: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.
A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.0 -
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.Stu_of_Kunming said:
How is he pocketing anything? The club runs at a massive loss.Airman Brown said:
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.AFKABartram said:
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.PeterGage said:
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.Taxi_Lad said:
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.PeterGage said:
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 😎Gillis said:PeterGage said: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.
A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
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.4 -
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.Airman Brown said:
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.Stu_of_Kunming said:
How is he pocketing anything? The club runs at a massive loss.Airman Brown said:
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.AFKABartram said:
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.PeterGage said:
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.Taxi_Lad said:
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.PeterGage said:
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 😎Gillis said:PeterGage said: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.
A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
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.0 -
Genuinely can't see an end to this as I don't think RD will let the club go for anything less than HE thinks it's worth. I can't see a buyer paying even half the reported asking price and thats leaving aside the debts6
-
What I can’t figure out is just how much money does a man of 72 need for the rest of his life. He should be cruising the med on his yacht and playing a few rounds of golf a week not having to worry about the electronics game or a South East London football. Club. Roland, if you’re reading this, do yourself a favour and cut your losses. Just sell up and eff off. Put your feet up, spend your money on wine women and song. Enjoy yourself coz it’s later than you think10
-
I need my Charlton fix. The Portsmouth game was like a Wedding of a mate when you know it's going to end in tears and not last but you enjoy the moment.
The disparity of the amount RD wants and the genuine offer on the table, means we have no hope of this ever ending before the grim reaper works his magic/tragic (delete to suit)
0 -
The amount of football tourists at Charlton home games is quite high. The guy I talked to on Saturday at East Croydon with his Charlton club shop bag had been to Palace v Brighton and then on to the Valley.
The guy was with his two friends from Luxembourg and was heading back to his hotel in Concrete ridden central Croydon.
(100% true, the feller said the noise was louder at the valley than Selhurst !)
Only recalling this story because Charlton are the same price as some national League teams (£20 unless gold game) whoever thinks a near total boycott could ever happen are living in a utopian alternative universe.
0 -
I think Roland has now made it abundantly clear, and in public, that he considers the club to be worth nothing - ie he is willing to give it away for free to someone who will buy SL & The Valley.
It therefore comes down to what someone is willing to pay for the land, with the ex-directors' debts tied to it.
The figure he has in mind is apparently not for current usage. Is there any way of getting through to him - presumably via LdT - just how difficult, expensive and ultimately unlikely it is in the short to medium term (and probably long term as well) for any speculator to get planning permission for change of use & development on either site?
We know he got PP for his hotel, shops & flats at Stayen (where of course he has friends in high places) and maybe he assumes it would be equally easy for someone who has friends on the Greenwich planning committee to effect a similar slight-of-hand?
Or am I completely wrong about the planning issue, and has someone on Greenwich Council maybe given him the nod & wink over this? Does Roland know a very helpful man, who knows someone... Who knows? I certainly don't!8 -
Of course it's absurd for RD to demand that EFL buy the club. But surely the EFL does have one powerful sanction - they could threaten to expel CAFC. Under what circumstances could RD - or any other delinquent owner for that matter - be kicked out, besides the inability to fulfil their fixtures? If the answer is none, perhaps it's time EFL adopted some further powers to dispossess or at least discipline these rogues.
0 -
What is the exit strategy?ShootersHillGuru said:What is the end game ?
Remember that question that so many people laughed at and dismissed?
0 - Sponsored links:
-
GlassHalfFull said:
Of course it's absurd for RD to demand that EFL buy the club. But surely the EFL does have one powerful sanction - they could threaten to expel CAFC. Under what circumstances could RD - or any other delinquent owner for that matter - be kicked out, besides the inability to fulfil their fixtures? If the answer is none, perhaps it's time EFL adopted some further powers to dispossess or at least discipline these rogues.
How is that a a threat to Roland, he could then close the club or move to a Park ground, he cuts the running costs either way.GlassHalfFull said:
Of course it's absurd for RD to demand that EFL buy the club. But surely the EFL does have one powerful sanction - they could threaten to expel CAFC. Under what circumstances could RD - or any other delinquent owner for that matter - be kicked out, besides the inability to fulfil their fixtures? If the answer is none, perhaps it's time EFL adopted some further powers to dispossess or at least discipline these rogues.0 -
Without the licence Charlton becomes a real estate company with two properties of limited commercial potential. The rest is a fire sale. Aside from the residual value of the property RD's total investment is worthless, you know, the way it actually is, except in his own mind.
A complaisant EFL is not flexing its hidden muscles. That licence really is a golden ticket and shouldn't be taken for granted so easily.
1 -
A big Cheque mate.ShootersHillGuru said:What is the end game ?0 -
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.
0 -
'Great news, Malta fans. I have it on good authority that this siege is nearly over. Just a few loose ends to tie up and it is expected to be a maximum of two weeks.'happyvalley said:1575, Siege of Malta begins.6 -
I don't trust Greenwich Council, whatever the GLC is called now or Central Government not to find some loophole or other to rewrite the planning rules 'if the price is right.'N01R4M said:I think Roland has now made it abundantly clear, and in public, that he considers the club to be worth nothing - ie he is willing to give it away for free to someone who will buy SL & The Valley.
It therefore comes down to what someone is willing to pay for the land, with the ex-directors' debts tied to it.
The figure he has in mind is apparently not for current usage. Is there any way of getting through to him - presumably via LdT - just how difficult, expensive and ultimately unlikely it is in the short to medium term (and probably long term as well) for any speculator to get planning permission for change of use & development on either site?
We know he got PP for his hotel, shops & flats at Stayen (where of course he has friends in high places) and maybe he assumes it would be equally easy for someone who has friends on the Greenwich planning committee to effect a similar slight-of-hand?
Or am I completely wrong about the planning issue, and has someone on Greenwich Council maybe given him the nod & wink over this? Does Roland know a very helpful man, who knows someone... Who knows? I certainly don't!
Hence your 'nod and a wink' theory may well be apposite @N01R4M.2 -
This is what confuses me about people saying the EFL need to take action. We have a problem, RD is damaging our club with his ownership. As far as I can see the EFL has 3 options, other than trying to reason with him to sell.GlassHalfFull said:
Of course it's absurd for RD to demand that EFL buy the club. But surely the EFL does have one powerful sanction - they could threaten to expel CAFC. Under what circumstances could RD - or any other delinquent owner for that matter - be kicked out, besides the inability to fulfil their fixtures? If the answer is none, perhaps it's time EFL adopted some further powers to dispossess or at least discipline these rogues.
1) Points deduction. Hurts us more than it hurts him.
2) Financial sanctions, he will just add it to the running costs. Again hurts us more than him.
3) Remove the golden share. Again he would still hold the real estate, we would have no club.
I can't see, other than dialogue, how they can put any pressure on him, or other owners, to sell. If they could I am also not sure if they should. Every year they would get dozens of supporters groups demanding the same every year.0 -
Cafc43v3r said: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.
10 -
This is the big flaw in RD's thinking. He wants all the benefits of Charlton being a proper football club without taking responsibility of running the club as one. It just doesn't work. The EFL must surely see that allowing a (?fit and proper?) "amateur" to participate weakens the whole structure of the League and diminishes the endeavours of all the diligent owners like Andy Holt who are really really trying hard to make it all work. RD steadily allowing his own club to degrade is disrespectful and perilous for its peers as well as itself.
1 -
I don't see what the EFL can legally do. Roland isn't breaking any rules, the players are being paid, we don't owe money to other clubs etcCafc43v3r said:
This is what confuses me about people saying the EFL need to take action. We have a problem, RD is damaging our club with his ownership. As far as I can see the EFL has 3 options, other than trying to reason with him to sell.GlassHalfFull said:
Of course it's absurd for RD to demand that EFL buy the club. But surely the EFL does have one powerful sanction - they could threaten to expel CAFC. Under what circumstances could RD - or any other delinquent owner for that matter - be kicked out, besides the inability to fulfil their fixtures? If the answer is none, perhaps it's time EFL adopted some further powers to dispossess or at least discipline these rogues.
1) Points deduction. Hurts us more than it hurts him.
2) Financial sanctions, he will just add it to the running costs. Again hurts us more than him.
3) Remove the golden share. Again he would still hold the real estate, we would have no club.
I can't see, other than dialogue, how they can put any pressure on him, or other owners, to sell. If they could I am also not sure if they should. Every year they would get dozens of supporters groups demanding the same every year.
Yes Roland has been a terrible owner for us, but from the EFL's point of view the club is still functioning normally and is in the playoff positions in L1. The nature of football is that there are good owners and bad owners, and not all clubs can be successful.2
This discussion has been closed.
