Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Breaking News - ex-Premier League side now forced to rent ground
Comments
-
The only way I could see it working is owning a stake of the land (25% for symbolic purposes) so we don't keep have the same issue a chairman leaves. Should really be selling the assets with the club.Henry Irving said:
Don't think crowd funding is likely to raise the £50m asking price or even the £25m realistic price.JustFloydRoad said:I purpose we crowdfund to make sure the assets are owned by the club.
But if it did I wouldn't then be handing such a valuablle asset over to the club for free2 -
Maybe Charlie has found us a site next to the Thames in Oxfordse9addick said:
“there isnt much in the way of spare land on the Thames to build”charltonkeston said:"Charlton Athletic have been offered two potential sites for a new stadium on the Thames should they be forced to leave The Valley."
I wonder where these 2 sites might be, there isnt much in the way of spare land on the Thames to build much let alone a stadium. And I would of thought housing in the way of tower blocks gets the most bangs for the square footage and a river view of the Thames is one hell of an expensive view.
"the terms of a lease which has 11 years remaining" is about the most accurate part of that piece.What do you mean? There tons of spare land along the Thames - it stretches from the Estuary to Oxfordshire with banks on both sides.
3 -
Redundant and underused branch lines are successful tram links in waiting. Run a tram link from North Greenwich to Charlton to Woolwich and you have the catalyst in place regenerate south east London without further public money.cafc999 said:Read somewhere that Network Rail were keen to reopen that branch line3 -
It’s just pure greed from Duchatelet. But he’ll no doubt tell you he’s just looking after his family.Athletico Charlton said:se9addick said:charltonkeston said:"Charlton Athletic have been offered two potential sites for a new stadium on the Thames should they be forced to leave The Valley."
I wonder where these 2 sites might be, there isnt much in the way of spare land on the Thames to build much let alone a stadium. And I would of thought housing in the way of tower blocks gets the most bangs for the square footage and a river view of the Thames is one hell of an expensive view.
"the terms of a lease which has 11 years remaining" is about the most accurate part of that piece.This sounds like a nonsense piece, it suits all parties (including Duchatelet) for Charlton to remain at the Valley. My hope is that stadium ownership is reunited with the club rather than another lease agreement. I’m convinced for us to prosper again that is a prerequisite.
Agreed.
Offered two pieces of land sounds like a leak from the club to put some sort of pressure on RD.
I can't see how signing a longer lease will be a precursor to us buying The Valley as it would surely just push more value to RD as the freeholder and make him less likely to sell.
A longer lease is not the answer. Ownership of the ground is. Nothing less. IMO.0 -
I think that was the planletthegoodtimesroll said:
Redundant and underused branch lines are successful tram links in waiting. Run a tram link from North Greenwich to Charlton to Woolwich and you have the catalyst in place regenerate south east London without further public money.cafc999 said:Read somewhere that Network Rail were keen to reopen that branch line1 -
The main problem is it doesn't really go anywhere, it ends at a 90° angle to the river. You'd probably need to build it out over The Thames, and have it run alongside the riverbank up to The O2 to minimise impact on the housing already built, and the ecological park there. It would be ideal as a smaller railway, like the DLR, but getting it to then join up with either Woolwich or Greenwich would be too cumbersome, unless you ran it as a completely separate entity and had it terminate at both of those, creating a link between the two ends that are south of the river.cafc999 said:Read somewhere that Network Rail were keen to reopen that branch line
0 -
Agreed, and weak to the point of being ridiculous given the cost of building a new ground and the known availability of land in the area. If you want to go down this route you need to float something outside the area (and actually that would be a very stupid idea which would only appeal to someone with no grasp of the realities).Athletico Charlton said:se9addick said:charltonkeston said:"Charlton Athletic have been offered two potential sites for a new stadium on the Thames should they be forced to leave The Valley."
I wonder where these 2 sites might be, there isnt much in the way of spare land on the Thames to build much let alone a stadium. And I would of thought housing in the way of tower blocks gets the most bangs for the square footage and a river view of the Thames is one hell of an expensive view.
"the terms of a lease which has 11 years remaining" is about the most accurate part of that piece.This sounds like a nonsense piece, it suits all parties (including Duchatelet) for Charlton to remain at the Valley. My hope is that stadium ownership is reunited with the club rather than another lease agreement. I’m convinced for us to prosper again that is a prerequisite.
Agreed.
Offered two pieces of land sounds like a leak from the club to put some sort of pressure on RD.
I can't see how signing a longer lease will be a precursor to us buying The Valley as it would surely just push more value to RD as the freeholder and make him less likely to sell.
A longer lease is not the answer. Ownership of the ground is. Nothing less. IMO.2 -
The lease expires in January 2035, which is ten years and two months away. In practical terms that means the end of the 2033/34 season. It is not a "medium term" lease, it is a current and growing risk, and it is bound to stymie investment unless resolved.JustFloydRoad said:So someone doesn't post the updated Sun article I have simified the situation:
The lease is 15 years.The current ownership group are looking to renegotiate the terms of the lease, which has 11 years remaining.According to City AM, the club have held "positive talks" with Duchatelet, with an eventual view to buying the ground outright (Then we would be rid of Roland).But should any deal not materialise, Charlton could be forced to move out of The Valley within the next decade.
There are two sites in which to build a new ground (if needed).
5 -
There are.break clauses too aren't there, although maybe tenant only?1
-
We don't own our ground?
Thank fuck for The Sun.0 - Sponsored links:
-
From everything sad about the ground from those in charge, i'm pretty sure they are looking to extend the lease and not buy. A real shame, as once again, RD keeps all the cards.0
-
We are f*cked forever1
-
We could ground share with Millwall and Gillingham. Float the stadium up and down the Thames for each home game. We could agree to switch between Friday night, Saturday and Sundays for weekend games when home games clashed. For Midweek we just agree who has Monday, Tuesday and Wednesdays, as was the case in the late sixties and seventies when Millwall played Monday nights, Charlton Tuesdays and Palace on Wednesdays.sam3110 said:Or a floating stadium like in Singapore0 -
Correct.Athletico Charlton said:There are.break clauses too aren't there, although maybe tenant only?0 -
I think the best you will get out of him is a short extension for double the rent now, or similar.J BLOCK said:From everything sad about the ground from those in charge, i'm pretty sure they are looking to extend the lease and not buy. A real shame, as once again, RD keeps all the cards.0 -
Not sure how I've stumbled across this thread again, but here we are.
Didn't the council put some sort of protection order over the ground that prevented it from being used for any other purpose, or being redeveloped?
Or is that yet another of my (far too frequent) false memories?0 -
You might be confusing it with it being designated an asset of community value, which means that if the property is put on the market then there's a six-month period where community groups can bid for it. It's largely symbolic.Powell2ThePeople said:Not sure how I've stumbled across this thread again, but here we are.
Didn't the council put some sort of protection order over the ground that prevented it from being used for any other purpose, or being redeveloped?
Or is that yet another of my (far too frequent) false memories?1
