Andrew Barclay

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

It was varney and his sheiks or whoever being a viable alternative that really ramped up the duchatalet protests - not saying we didn’t want him out but I really hope people don’t turn on TS if things don’t immediately go to plan coz that’s the last thing we need and the noises from the likes of whitehand and everitt etc r all starting to sound a bit like that to me - we have to gamble millions on trying to get to the prem seems to be the only way is what I hear from them and of course varney and Barclay are waiting to do that 

You are an idiot, Doucher, aren’t you? Nobody is campaigning to get TS out, and people asking questions about his appointments or strategy can perfectly easily inhabit a space between adulation and antipathy. It was the former that had intelligent people lapping up nonsense from Southall and you can see the same phenomenon now. It is all about outcomes.

I’m not advocating Barclay or anyone at this point. I am saying that to believe you can get from where we are to the PL without investing millions more is just daydreaming.

I didn't say you were campaigning to get TS out but i can see the pressure building to get barclay and your mate in - maybe that's a good thing, probably is but i just hope that if that doesn't happen, we don't go down another anti the owner route coz things aren't panning out how you think they should - nothing idiotic about that. You've become a bit rude and silly lately but i'll rise above that and refrain from name calling but will say what i think.     

Bailey said:

DOUCHER said:

Grapevine49 said:

Well if he is suggesting we give Wiltshire an opportunity now then I suggest he does not quite have his finger on the pulse. We can do nothing before January can we.

I am delighted by anybody expressing an interest in the club but no matter the interest the world and his wife had 3 years to invest in Charlton. Mr Barclay didn’t. If he had the money to blow Duchatelet away why didn’t he?

What because he elected to use a consultant who was persona non grata?

Whose interests does that serve? Not his and not the clubs. Ah it is question of leverage. What leverage?

I will happily welcome Mr Barclay to the table. Will M.Duchâtelet? If so why? What’s changed?

Yep I agree - it’s annoying that every time the club is up for sale or needs a buyer, certain characters make themselves unable to do a deal or disappear and then when the club isn’t for sale, they re appear as a viable alternative 

They probably are a viable alternative Mr DOUCHER and to a lot of Charlton supporters they were the better choice because getting the Valley and training ground back was priority number one. We all have experience of divorcing the ground from the club and its been stated elsewhere that the problem hasn't gone away and at the rate of knots that Sandgaard is losing money that problem may rear its head sooner rather than later and certainly will appear before the end of the 15 year lease. Good luck to Sandgaard I think he is an honest man who wants success but people need to realise that the Belgian still owns our destiny by way of his ownership of the infrastructure and he is still presents the biggest danger to this football club that anyone can remember.

Maybe but r they gonna be able to get the valley and training ground back now? if they can and they can inject more money in to help TS as well then great but if its not gonna happen, lets not put a load of additional pipe dreams out there and pressure on the current owner who has actually saved us from administration and put his money where his mouth is - that is what i'm saying.  

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

It was varney and his sheiks or whoever being a viable alternative that really ramped up the duchatalet protests - not saying we didn’t want him out but I really hope people don’t turn on TS if things don’t immediately go to plan coz that’s the last thing we need and the noises from the likes of whitehand and everitt etc r all starting to sound a bit like that to me - we have to gamble millions on trying to get to the prem seems to be the only way is what I hear from them and of course varney and Barclay are waiting to do that 

You are an idiot, Doucher, aren’t you? Nobody is campaigning to get TS out, and people asking questions about his appointments or strategy can perfectly easily inhabit a space between adulation and antipathy. It was the former that had intelligent people lapping up nonsense from Southall and you can see the same phenomenon now. It is all about outcomes.

I’m not advocating Barclay or anyone at this point. I am saying that to believe you can get from where we are to the PL without investing millions more is just daydreaming.

I didn't say you were campaigning to get TS out but i can see the pressure building to get barclay and your mate in - maybe that's a good thing, probably is but i just hope that if that doesn't happen, we don't go down another anti the owner route coz things aren't panning out how you think they should - nothing idiotic about that. You've become a bit rude and silly lately but i'll rise above that and refrain from name calling but will say what i think.     

The only way pressure will build on TS is failure on the pitch. The views of individuals are irrelevant to that. 

Agreed, if things don't change on the pitch the pressure will build on TS to get rid of Adkins, Roddy, both etc 

AndyG said:

I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously.
Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?

It isn't until something goes wrong. 

AndyG said:

I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously.
Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?

Owning an asset like your own home is a massive advantage in terms of security. The sooner the CAFC real estate is again owned by the football club the better. Unfortunately I don’t see it happening any time soon. 

If you split the club and the real estate there's a big incentive for the club's owner to look at other locations that might be more cost effective. When the club's gone the real estate owner can develop the sites without being publicly villified and there's less chance of being tied up for years in legal challenges. If you own the freehold and aren't worried about engineering an immediate property play it's quite a smart move.

Lordflashheart said:

AndyG said:

I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously.
Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?

Well if we go back to the 1980’s in relation to Charlton and The Valley, you will find the answer…..

Of course owning your ground is important but this is in many respects a different situation - massive money was required to put the valley right after years of neglect and the increasing safety regulations brought about by the various disasters. I don't believe RD wants to see us go under but does want some of his money back if we become a prem club. 

blackpool72 said:

AndyG said:

I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously.
Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?

Ok.
Let's suppose in a few years time that Sandgaard wants out as it's costing him too much money. 
Who in their right mind would buy Charlton from him when Roland still owns the valley and sparrows lane. 
Also if Sandgaard can't come up with the money to buy the valley what's to stop Roland from selling it to someone else. 
Separating the club from the valley could yet prove disastrous for Charlton. 

Understand your point, but there weren't exactly a queue of buyers round the corner wanting to buy the Club with the assets at the time (Apparntly Barclay was, but RD weren't entertaining him). I think TS was the only option at the time and I look at it as at least the Club is still in existance, with some chance of buying the assets at some point, rather than no Club left at all.

Maybe Barclay is looking at buying the assets off Roland and letting them to TS in exchange for shares or something? 

But ultimately, at least the Club is going.

KiwiValley said:

Just saw Andrew Barclay at Nando’s dining with a man with an Australian accent. Both men wearing Charlton scarves.  Don't start.Please....

blackpool72 said:

AndyG said:

I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously.
Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?

Ok.
Let's suppose in a few years time that Sandgaard wants out as it's costing him too much money. 
Who in their right mind would buy Charlton from him when Roland still owns the valley and sparrows lane. 
Also if Sandgaard can't come up with the money to buy the valley what's to stop Roland from selling it to someone else. 
Separating the club from the valley could yet prove disastrous for Charlton. 

Southall because he will then pinky promise to buy the ground off of roland.

AndyG said:

I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously.
Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?

As it stands the club has very little market value - heavy operating losses in L1 with no fixed assets beyond the lease and no obviously saleable players. Happy for others to correct me on this, but if TS wanted a partner to invest £10m it seems to me they would be likely to want all the equity. If the club owned the freehold of the ground, that investment could be secured against that asset, which is the basis of the ex-director loans, for example.

If TS is able to fund the business with no external support, either from his own resources or by improving its performance, then it matters less, but it's still an unresolved problem down the line and unlikely to be resolved until RD dies, it appears. If TS runs out of money or enthusiasm in the meantime, it's potentially a big issue.

Another way of looking at this is that there aren't many TSs around and we may need more than one.

Cafc43v3r said:

Airman Brown said:

AndyG said:

I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously.
Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?

As it stands the club has very little market value - heavy operating losses in L1 with no fixed assets beyond the lease and no obviously saleable players. Happy for others to correct me on this, but if TS wanted a partner to invest £10m it seems to me they would be likely to want all the equity. If the club owned the freehold of the ground, that investment could be secured against that asset, which is the basis of the ex-director loans, for example.

If TS is able to fund the business with no external support, either from his own resources or by improving its performance, then it matters less, but it's still an unresolved problem down the line and unlikely to be resolved until RD dies, it appears. If TS runs out of money or enthusiasm in the meantime, it's potentially a big issue.

Another way of looking at this is that there aren't many TSs around and we may need more than one.

One positive (it would be a positive if the ground was owned by someone else, say a not for profit trust, for example) is that Thomas, or anyone else, can't do is load the club with debt because they have nothing to secure it against. 

If/when Thomas has had enough he has, in reality, either got to give it away or put us in administration and right it all off anyway. 

Not sure of the relevance of this though.

From an investor perspective we are very high risk, as without the ground as an asset, there is clear liquidity issues.  

DOUCHER said:

Lordflashheart said:

AndyG said:

I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously.
Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?

Well if we go back to the 1980’s in relation to Charlton and The Valley, you will find the answer…..

Of course owning your ground is important but this is in many respects a different situation - massive money was required to put the valley right after years of neglect and the increasing safety regulations brought about by the various disasters. I don't believe RD wants to see us go under but does want some of his money back if we become a prem club. 

If we went under, I don”t think he’d give a shyte one way or the other, that is unless it impacted negatively on his investment.

Well let’s hope Roland dies soon and his heirs are a bit more sensible.

AndyG said:

I dont understand all the fuss about the valley ownership. The main thing is that Charlton continue to play at the Valley. Does it make any difference who owns it ? There are plenty of clubs that dont own their grounds such as WHU and City. It seems to me that people are getting hung up on a situation that doesnt really mean anything. Given the choice if someone said to me what would you prefer £50m to be spent on buying the valley or £50m spent on players I know what one I would go for, not that is a likely scenario obviously.
Can someone actually explain why ground ownership is so important?

1. Not owning it means paying rent which is a drag on cashflow, even more so when you are outside the PL