Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Duchatelet is THE Problem
ElfsborgAddick
Posts: 29,080
Any owners that we have who do not purchase The Valley will surely hinder our prospects on the pitch.
With the lease winding down rapidly I can see a bleak future unless someone comes in and buys everything.
With the lease winding down rapidly I can see a bleak future unless someone comes in and buys everything.
12
Comments
-
or negotiate a 99year lease.ElfsborgAddick said:Any owners that we have who do not purchase The Valley will surely hinder our prospects on the pitch.
With the lease winding down rapidly I can see a bleak future unless someone comes in and buys everything.0 -
In 99 years, we will still be in this crap division.msomerton said:
or negotiate a 99year lease.ElfsborgAddick said:Any owners that we have who do not purchase The Valley will surely hinder our prospects on the pitch.
With the lease winding down rapidly I can see a bleak future unless someone comes in and buys everything.29 -
Can anyone explain the correlation between owning a stadium and being successful on the pitch. Man City don’t own their stadium and they do alright.The problem is we keep signing shit players and employing shit managers.63
-
Is it such a crazy idea to crowd fund for a share (for the supporters trust)?ElfsborgAddick said:Any owners that we have who do not purchase The Valley will surely hinder our prospects on the pitch.
With the lease winding down rapidly I can see a bleak future unless someone comes in and buys everything.0 -
He is A problem, but he is not THE problem. We spend more on transfers and wages than most of this division and yet we massively underperform constantly.
We are currently sat below the likes of Stockport, Mansfield, Lincoln and Exeter and are level on points with Stevenage. That has nothing to do with us not owning our ground.58 -
Absolutely 100% dead right. It's been going on with small exceptions since Pardew was here.Chris_from_Sidcup said:He is A problem, but he is not THE problem. We spend more on transfers and wages than most of this division and yet we massively underperform constantly.
We are currently sat below the likes of Stockport, Mansfield, Lincoln and Exeter and are level on points with Stevenage. That has nothing to do with us not owning our ground.0 -
Yes, it’s a nice idea but it isn’t realistic. The costs would be huge (remember the property would require maintenance & upkeep). I doubt we’d have enough fans with deep enough pockets to make it viable.JustFloydRoad said:
Is it such a crazy idea to crowd fund for a share (for the supporters trust)?ElfsborgAddick said:Any owners that we have who do not purchase The Valley will surely hinder our prospects on the pitch.
With the lease winding down rapidly I can see a bleak future unless someone comes in and buys everything.2 -
it's not crazy, but it's not realistic.JustFloydRoad said:
Is it such a crazy idea to crowd fund for a share (for the supporters trust)?ElfsborgAddick said:Any owners that we have who do not purchase The Valley will surely hinder our prospects on the pitch.
With the lease winding down rapidly I can see a bleak future unless someone comes in and buys everything.
1. Roland and Roderick have substantially overvalued the real-estate
2. You can't buy a bit of a stadium, who is going to buy the rest?
3. Even if we got the Valley and SL at reasonable price, say £15m. You would need 291,080 (population of Greenwich Borough) to give £52 each, or 27,111(capacity of the Valley) to give £554 each, or 8000(season ticket holders) to give £1875 each.
The wider football fraternity are generous, loads of people chipped in to fix the pitch at Plough Lane.0 -
I believe there are deep, structural problems with the club. It’s the only thing that explains why for the best part of 15 years we’ve known nothing but failure (excluding a couple of brief moments of joy). Year after year, squad after squad, manager after manager the outcomes on the field are abysmal.I do think a major part of the issue is related to the ownership of the ground. This manifests in a couple of ways, first it makes it easier for suboptimal parties to take control of the club (I don’t actually include the current ownership in that description by the way). If you don’t need to
make the outlay for property assets and instead just take on the loss making enterprise it lowers the barrier to entry to acquire the club - you don’t necessarily need serious money behind you.Also, and this is slightly less tangible, without the club and property under common ownership we just feel like an amateur, unserious, outfit. There’s an argument that to be successful you should emulate a successful business, for lots of clubs in England owning your own stadium is a hallmark of success and things often go wrong when the stadium and club are separated. In fairness we haven’t had a total disaster situation since the club and property were separated but I don’t think it’s coincidence that we’ve stagnated at pretty much our lowest ever level in the intervening period.5 -
Are we League One's Everton? They seem to be perennial underperformers and are pretty competitive with their net spend.Big William said:
Absolutely 100% dead right. It's been going on with small exceptions since Pardew was here.Chris_from_Sidcup said:He is A problem, but he is not THE problem. We spend more on transfers and wages than most of this division and yet we massively underperform constantly.
We are currently sat below the likes of Stockport, Mansfield, Lincoln and Exeter and are level on points with Stevenage. That has nothing to do with us not owning our ground.1 -
Sponsored links:
-
I'd rather, at the moment, the owners spend more money on decent players than the ground. Owning the ground is important but improviing our dreadful team more so at the moment.6
-
It’s both. Business need sensible investment plans covering both short and long term strategic goals.CafcWest said:I'd rather, at the moment, the owners spend more money on decent players than the ground. Owning the ground is important but improviing our dreadful team more so at the moment.4 -
Improve our team and the ground becomes more expensive...
2 -
Incorrect in my opinion.He is a problem
but THE problem is our squad.We sold our and the division’s best striker and replaced with average alternates. Some of us allowed ourselves to believe it was in the interest of a better balanced squad but in reality was just in line with the CM line about mitigating losses with player trading.We have to buy ourselves out of this league. But that requires CM and team to spin a new line to the consortium of owners whilst protecting their own positions.8 -
Fortunately, I won't be around to see it....Bilko said:
In 99 years, we will still be in this crap division.msomerton said:
or negotiate a 99year lease.ElfsborgAddick said:Any owners that we have who do not purchase The Valley will surely hinder our prospects on the pitch.
With the lease winding down rapidly I can see a bleak future unless someone comes in and buys everything.
0 -
Bang on - No serious buyers, with proper ideas about the long term success of a football club will buy one without the assets.ElfsborgAddick said:Any owners that we have who do not purchase The Valley will surely hinder our prospects on the pitch.
With the lease winding down rapidly I can see a bleak future unless someone comes in and buys everything.
7 -
.0
-
There’s probably something in that, albeit with much smaller numbers involved. Probably the people least concerned with the ground situation are the players and manager, their main concern is winning matches. Everton will eventually move to a state of the art stadium but that doesn’t seem to have enlivened them very much on the pitch. If footballers lost sleep over their ground situations, we probably wouldn’t have won many games from 1985 to 1992. What drives me mad is year on year, even with our straightened circumstances we have more resources than teams who outbattle and beat us, over and over again.The Prince-e-Paul said:
Are we League One's Everton? They seem to be perennial underperformers and are pretty competitive with their net spend.Big William said:
Absolutely 100% dead right. It's been going on with small exceptions since Pardew was here.Chris_from_Sidcup said:He is A problem, but he is not THE problem. We spend more on transfers and wages than most of this division and yet we massively underperform constantly.
We are currently sat below the likes of Stockport, Mansfield, Lincoln and Exeter and are level on points with Stevenage. That has nothing to do with us not owning our ground.1 -
arny23394 said:Can anyone explain the correlation between owning a stadium and being successful on the pitch. Man City don’t own their stadium and they do alright.The problem is we keep signing shit players and employing shit managers.
0 -
I don't think there's always direct correlation and we can't say there's a blanket rule where ground ownership is always necessarily good and ground leasing is bad. I guess the main factors on whether it's positive or not are how friendly or hostile the owners are to the club, how much the rent is, how long the lease is, how easy it is to make any necessary changes, who has the rights on stadium usage outside of football, how secure the long term relationship with the landlord is and the consequent ability to keep the arrangement going in the long term.arny23394 said:Can anyone explain the correlation between owning a stadium and being successful on the pitch. Man City don’t own their stadium and they do alright.The problem is we keep signing shit players and employing shit managers.
From what I understand Manchester City are very happy with their situation. And why wouldn't they be, they got a 20k upgrade on their old Maine Road ground, handed to them on a plate. They know that the city council who are a strategic ally are both friendly partners, and are highly unlikely to be able to secure a better deal from anyone else. The club have the whip hand in that relationship and they and they know it. They also hold the licence to put on non-footballing events of their choice.
Contrast this to our situation where the owner is known for his petulance, has a grouse against the club he once owned and has seriously overestimated the value of the stadium and the prospects of building on the land. Now I don't suppose any of us really know what RD is thinking. Maybe he has some affection for the club (though if he has, he had a funny way of showing it when he was the owner). We do know that he is 78 years old now and we expect that when he goes, ownership will be passed to Roderick. Again, we don't know what Roderick's thinking is. But that the lease can change hands so easily, is quite an existential threat to both to the future of the lease and the future of the club. For this reason, I think Elfsberg is quite right to be concerned.
That said, I think those who have said that this is a problem rather than the problem are spot on. Something is rotten at CAFC, and the most rotten thing is unlikely to be the lease on the ground.2 -
Sponsored links:
-
Convinced from very early on that his motive was the Land.
I wonder how many will complain if we move grounds who are complacent atm.0 -
If he is after money from selling land he gone about it in an expensive way.ElfsborgAddick said:Convinced from very early on that his motive was the Land.
I wonder how many will complain if we move grounds who are complacent atm.
How much would he get for selling the Valley.
I can tell you that Archbishop Tennison school which covers just over one acre of central London went for £8.7 million.
0 -
I have no idea, I am not 'ITK', I have always believed it is his end game.msomerton said:
If he is after money from selling land he gone about it in an expensive way.ElfsborgAddick said:Convinced from very early on that his motive was the Land.
I wonder how many will complain if we move grounds who are complacent atm.
How much would he get for selling the Valley.
I can tell you that Archbishop Tennison school which covers just over one acre of central London went for £8.7 million.
As for his advancing years, no doubt his family take over.1 -
Man city are a brand. They are at a point now where they could ply their trade at any 40k+ stadium a fill it out week after week. And most stadiums.would welcome them.They are a truly global company.arny23394 said:Can anyone explain the correlation between owning a stadium and being successful on the pitch. Man City don’t own their stadium and they do alright.The problem is we keep signing shit players and employing shit managers.
It's a completely different story for the clubs in the lower echelons. The ground is the base from which to build the brand. Or at least keep It ticking over.It is a lifeline and an important one.
Look at Wrexham. They are on their way to bigger and brighter things, but what did the owners do early on? Reunite the club with the ground.
It's an expensive exercise, but one that Ryan Reynolds and his people realised they needed to do. I don't get the impression it is at the top of this lots list for that very reason.7 -
Absolutely this, of course the club owning the ground is the best outcome, but it's definitely not what holds us back season after season.arny23394 said:Can anyone explain the correlation between owning a stadium and being successful on the pitch. Man City don’t own their stadium and they do alright.The problem is we keep signing shit players and employing shit managers.2 -
Has everyone forgot what happened when we LOST The Valley?Was it not the most important thing to get it back? All the efforts people put in? The Valley Party? Fund raising? The celebrations and relief when we finally returned?I suppose we should just put that aside and just think about a quick win here and there. Best forget about the foundations of this club and securing our future.
Typical “I want it now” mentality, without any thought about what it may mean to the survival/existence of the club in the future.And as for comparisons with Man C…. Ffs. Get real.7 -
No one forgot anything. No one is against club ownership of the Valley. To suggest otherwise is crazy.Powell2ThePeople said:Has everyone forgot what happened when we LOST The Valley?Was it not the most important thing to get it back? All the efforts people put in? The Valley Party? Fund raising? The celebrations and relief when we finally returned?I suppose we should just put that aside and just think about a quick win here and there. Best forget about the foundations of this club and securing our future.
Typical “I want it now” mentality, without any thought about what it may mean to the survival/existence of the club in the future.And as for comparisons with Man C…. Ffs. Get real.
The entire premise of the thread is that lack of ownership of the stadium prevents the team being successful on the pitch. That’s clearly false looking at Man City or Coventry‘s rise from League 2 to Championship play off final or even going back to Charlton Athletic in the late 80s.
That doesn’t mean anyone is angling for, or complacent to the possibility of, a return to the Selhurst days.3 -
Big difference in purchase price though. Wrexham owners paid £2million for the ground.carly burn said:
Man city are a brand. They are at a point now where they could ply their trade at any 40k+ stadium a fill it out week after week. And most stadiums.would welcome them.They are a truly global company.arny23394 said:Can anyone explain the correlation between owning a stadium and being successful on the pitch. Man City don’t own their stadium and they do alright.The problem is we keep signing shit players and employing shit managers.
It's a completely different story for the clubs in the lower echelons. The ground is the base from which to build the brand. Or at least keep It ticking over.It is a lifeline and an important one.
Look at Wrexham. They are on their way to bigger and brighter things, but what did the owners do early on? Reunite the club with the ground.
It's an expensive exercise, but one that Ryan Reynolds and his people realised they needed to do. I don't get the impression it is at the top of this lots list for that very reason.Maybe our owners would be closer to reuniting The Valley with club if the ground purchase price was reasonable, and not the ridiculous amount Duchatelet is holding out for.14 -
Losing money and fans hand over fist in the league one seems far more of a threat than who owns the ground.Powell2ThePeople said:Has everyone forgot what happened when we LOST The Valley?Was it not the most important thing to get it back? All the efforts people put in? The Valley Party? Fund raising? The celebrations and relief when we finally returned?I suppose we should just put that aside and just think about a quick win here and there. Best forget about the foundations of this club and securing our future.
Typical “I want it now” mentality, without any thought about what it may mean to the survival/existence of the club in the future.And as for comparisons with Man C…. Ffs. Get real.4 -
Duchatelet may be an arse but the main problem is that it makes us vulnerable when ownership is being sold to shysters buying control cheaply.ElfsborgAddick said:Any owners that we have who do not purchase The Valley will surely hinder our prospects on the pitch.
With the lease winding down rapidly I can see a bleak future unless someone comes in and buys everything.
We’ve had enough experience of that but the current owners are not shysters.
Their intentions are good, the plans sensible and the money is there. Whether Jones is a sound appointment to achieve their immediate objectives is another matter.
5
