Let’s face it - RD has us over a barrel here and I think the above discussion only reinforces that - makes no sense in any way to leave the valley - extending the lease or negotiating a sale is the only way - leave the valley - which none of us want - and he will be able to sell the land for development so we have very few bargaining chips from what I can see
That’s assuming Greenwich Council grant planning permission. That’s not a given by any means.
No its not but its not a given that they wouldn't either - if we moved out and built a new ground (which isn't going to happen) then i'd say they probably would - what else would the ground be used for? Duchatalet will know this as will the club so us threatening to move out isn't really an ace up our sleeve - we just have to hope he wants to agree something reasonable, which again, is far from a given.
Dushitelet has us by the b*******.
I am sure he's not concerned in the slightest should we not sign a new lease.
Not sure that's true at all. His value for the valley + SL is designed so that on paper he can claim be broke even/profited from football. It's purely an exercise in massaging his ego, showing how clever he is to get out of football without making a loss.
If we weren't to renew the lease, all he's left with is a depreciating asset with ongoing running costs/overheads with no way to sell for more than half the current valuation and a compatible fan base who would make any sale painful and drawn out.
Ergo, whilst he has a lease with us he can pretend he's some sort of football industry guru, that all falls apart the second we walk.
On a very generous day, with a fair wind from the planning gods, you could argue the valley + SL are potentially worth £20m. The valuation from Roland is £44m. When he shuffles off this mortal coil you'd imagine a sensible figure somewhere between those two figures will be negotiated.
Rodwell said nothing new, one small part was extracted to make a headline. The reality has always been that as long the ground and club are separated, there is always the risk of us being kicked out at the end of the current lease, if we don't extend the lease or buy the stadium and training ground.
HOWEVER I can see zero chance that Greenwich allowing redevelopment of The Valley when its still the club's ground. It would be political suicide to allow a Belgian businessman to profit by redeveloping a major local community asset, when there is a viable football club playing there. And not just in Greenwich.
Indeed I don't think Roland expects to be able to do that either. BUT he will be after a full and excessive price for the assets, way more than they are worth. That's the problem.
Surely if the owners haven't got £50m (estimate) to buy back the ground, they aren't going to have £100-125m to build a stadium to house 20-25,000 fans. It cannot make any business sense to even consider moving, if Roland will sell. Surely the owners must buy the ground before the lease ends, if their intention is to own a professional football club.
The stadium plan must have been one of the key objectives at the point of purchasing the club, so it surely is on the to do list.
To me it's a bit like owning an old car nearing its MOT. It's going to cost a lot in repairs etc to get it through the test, but to replace the car will likely cost double, or more. The car is already well known to the owner, and despite it being old is generally reliable. A new car needs to be found and the cost is unclear. It may also not be reliable. Better the devil you know?
I have two cars for daily use, one nearly 30 years old and the other nearly 40!
Appreciate the effort youve gone to PeP but surely a house buying quote would have been better?
Let’s face it - RD has us over a barrel here and I think the above discussion only reinforces that - makes no sense in any way to leave the valley - extending the lease or negotiating a sale is the only way - leave the valley - which none of us want - and he will be able to sell the land for development so we have very few bargaining chips from what I can see
That’s assuming Greenwich Council grant planning permission. That’s not a given by any means.
he would then sell the Valley for less than he currently asking for. As I have pointed out before a similar sight The Archbishop Tenison`s school sight in Kennington which is 1.2 acres of mixed freehold and lease hold was sold for £7.87 million. So how many acres does the valley cover.
maybe 4? the land most likely wouldn't be as valuable as in kennington but also would only have 1 owner and no tenants so ??
No Tennants. School close but a number of big buildings.
The Valley isn't a "ready-made premier league ground" anymore.
Look at The Amex, Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, Hill Dickinson Stadium, the Etihad.
Old Trafford is considered not fit for purpose anymore, Newcastle are seriously considering moving away from St. James Park.
Yes we have a huge affinity with the exact patch of land we currently play on. But times move on, and if in 10 years time we're suddenly an established Premier League side and The Valley can't cater to our needs, we'd be silly to not look at our options.
All pie in the sky of course
What makes a ground fit for EPL purpose? Loads of plasticy bits everywhere? Popcorn cart at every stand entrance? Nonsense platitudes stencilled onto all the walls?
The Valley isn't a "ready-made premier league ground" anymore.
Look at The Amex, Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, Hill Dickinson Stadium, the Etihad.
Old Trafford is considered not fit for purpose anymore, Newcastle are seriously considering moving away from St. James Park.
Yes we have a huge affinity with the exact patch of land we currently play on. But times move on, and if in 10 years time we're suddenly an established Premier League side and The Valley can't cater to our needs, we'd be silly to not look at our options.
All pie in the sky of course
What makes a ground fit for EPL purpose? Loads of plasticy bits everywhere? Popcorn cart at every stand entrance? Nonsense platitudes stencilled onto all the walls?
Nowadays? Executive boxes and suites, mostly
Which we have.
But do we have enough? the Curbs stand only has a limited number, no idea how we compare to QPR and Millwall though.
Out of interest, based on RD's valuation of (I think) £45-50m, does anyone know if there's ever been a split between SL and The Valley?
I often think about this. New training grounds are very expensive but would people be happy if the owners bought The Valley and left SL?
I don’t personally think RD would split them up. It’s not like they’re two random plots - and for us at least, that’s exactly where the problem lies.
Is this £50m figure that RD has seemingly pulled out of thin air (with or without Southall’s input) also a reflection of the fact that he enjoys holding us to ransom, knowing the sentimental value it all holds?
A couple of questions -
What is the true estimated value of both sites?
Could RD issue the Club a Section 21 notice and sell if he received an offer from a third party, or just sell to them with us as sitting tenants?
Is The Valley & training ground worth £50M? Or is the only reason RD wants that figure is because ESI agreed that price knowing that they would never buy.
It’s worth £50m to Duchatalet! If he sells ground and training ground to property developers he’d likely get that figure.
TwoShits holds the cards, unfortunately and the impact to us is that if we don’t buy the ground we have complete uncertainty about the future. Whilst there is any speculation about our future at The Valley in place, the value holds for him.
From where I sit, I think the best current outcome is for investors to enable the club to buy the stadium so that any future direction is then in the club’s hands. The only downsides are that if the club were to get into financial trouble, the ground and training ground are ripe assets to sell off and we also leave ourselves open to another Duchatalet-style owner who could repeat and rinse…
- Duchatalet would only be able to sell them to a developer subject to planning consent being achieved for a redevelopment. This is highly unlikely / nigh on impossible without CAFC having been relocated. Even if he chucks us out or the lease expires, unless we have found a new permanent home in Greenwich Borough, planning is highly unlikely to be forthcoming.
- if the land is immediately saleable to a developer for £50m (or £45m as per book value in accounts), then Duchatalet has £50m tied up in something which is achieving about 0.5% return based on our £500k a year rent. Even based on a £15m-20m value - which surely any sensible owner would pay. He’s achieving only 3%. He could earn a minimum of 5% interest on whatever cash one does deem him to have tied up in The Valley simply by having the money sat in bonds; more if he actually invested it. So he is arguably losing money all the time he continues to own The Valley.
as others have pointed out, it would cost us way more money than £50m to build a new stadium for ourselves. But everything isn’t weighted in Roland’s favour, both parties are losing currently. It would make sense for them all to come to a deal on it.
Surely if the owners haven't got £50m (estimate) to buy back the ground, they aren't going to have £100-125m to build a stadium to house 20-25,000 fans. It cannot make any business sense to even consider moving, if Roland will sell. Surely the owners must buy the ground before the lease ends, if their intention is to own a professional football club.
The stadium plan must have been one of the key objectives at the point of purchasing the club, so it surely is on the to do list.
To me it's a bit like owning an old car nearing its MOT. It's going to cost a lot in repairs etc to get it through the test, but to replace the car will likely cost double, or more. The car is already well known to the owner, and despite it being old is generally reliable. A new car needs to be found and the cost is unclear. It may also not be reliable. Better the devil you know?
I have two cars for daily use, one nearly 30 years old and the other nearly 40!
To be fair @The Prince-e-Paul cars that old would be like futuristic models up there in the 1970s sorry, Sheffield! 😉
Remember that in 2016 Duchatelet was looking at redeveloping the Jimmy Seed Stand with residential units. We don't know how far he got. He can't do that under the existing lease. A potential scenario, however, is that the parties agree a new extended lease and in return he is allowed to do something like that, subject obviously to planning consent. I don't think a new stadium is a realistic option.
I suppose that getting a planning consent for a bit of the ground would add to the book value but there's little chance of anything getting built. I work on the fringes of the development industry and residential flats are struggling to get built due to new regulations and the costs of material and the fact that nobody has any money to buy finished flats at a cost that would give the developer any sort of profit. The increase in construction costs will make it really hard to get a stadium built, I would imagine, and if it was to happen it would be on some piece of contaminated land way out of London.
Remember that in 2016 Duchatelet was looking at redeveloping the Jimmy Seed Stand with residential units. We don't know how far he got. He can't do that under the existing lease. A potential scenario, however, is that the parties agree a new extended lease and in return he is allowed to do something like that, subject obviously to planning consent. I don't think a new stadium is a realistic option.
Remember that - Burger boy went under the radar to Leyton Orient without telling anyone and couldn't work out how the fans found out. That's what happens when you don't know your history or fanbase
Remember that in 2016 Duchatelet was looking at redeveloping the Jimmy Seed Stand with residential units. We don't know how far he got. He can't do that under the existing lease. A potential scenario, however, is that the parties agree a new extended lease and in return he is allowed to do something like that, subject obviously to planning consent. I don't think a new stadium is a realistic option.
Remember that in 2016 Duchatelet was looking at redeveloping the Jimmy Seed Stand with residential units. We don't know how far he got. He can't do that under the existing lease. A potential scenario, however, is that the parties agree a new extended lease and in return he is allowed to do something like that, subject obviously to planning consent. I don't think a new stadium is a realistic option.
Remember that - Burger boy went under the radar to Leyton Orient without telling anyone and couldn't work out how the fans found out. That's what happens when you don't know your history or fanbase
Remember that in 2016 Duchatelet was looking at redeveloping the Jimmy Seed Stand with residential units. We don't know how far he got. He can't do that under the existing lease. A potential scenario, however, is that the parties agree a new extended lease and in return he is allowed to do something like that, subject obviously to planning consent. I don't think a new stadium is a realistic option.
Remember that - Burger boy went under the radar to Leyton Orient without telling anyone and couldn't work out how the fans found out. That's what happens when you don't know your history or fanbase
Remember that in 2016 Duchatelet was looking at redeveloping the Jimmy Seed Stand with residential units. We don't know how far he got. He can't do that under the existing lease. A potential scenario, however, is that the parties agree a new extended lease and in return he is allowed to do something like that, subject obviously to planning consent. I don't think a new stadium is a realistic option.
Even this idea is pretty optimistic. Our ground is challenging. The SE corner is elevated so very difficult to develop anything worthwhile. The SW corner also faces challenging levels, the only entrance to the Jimmy Seed Stand, only accessibility via the car park, and close proximity to Valiant House. You could probably build flats above a newly redeveloped Jimmy Seed Stand IF they accepted allowing you to build flats on the stadiums land (big if anyway), but even in the event I think what you’d end up with would not be substantial / commercially exciting viability wise, especially for all the money it would cost… and the likely very compromised values you’d get for flats sandwiched between a council estate and an enormous active football ground.
Even developing a meaningful indicative scheme would costs 10s of thousands.
If I was Roland (or his son), and with time passing from the grudges of his unhappy marriage with us, I would want to just cash out of this headache and put my money to better use.
Ideally, you'd redevelop the Jimmy Seed Stand to create a complete bowl-shaped stadium, then relocate away fans to one half behind the goal and into the adjacent corner. I’m not sure whether you'd go for a single tier or try to mirror the North Stand, but either option has to be more achievable than building a new ground. It would finally ‘complete’ the modern Valley in my eyes.
Realistically, you’d only need to think bigger if we somehow spent the next 20-30 years as a regular top-eight Premier League club, selling out The Valley every home game — which feels a long way off.
Ultimately, we might have reached that point in the mid-2000s if we'd managed to keep the momentum of the Curbishley years going. Unfortunately, relegation and over a decade of 'banter era' chaos means we're now starting from well behind square one.
Does the Belgian really have leverage. It is a single use asset. There is no possibility politically that he would get permissions to develop until the club was well moved on to another location which could be years beyond the end of the lease term. Not to mention, he is not a property developer so at best he would be selling the land alone to a third party which I can’t imagine would be worth anywhere near what he is asking.
That being said, because the cost of building a new stadium is prohibitive, the club doesn’t have a lot of options either. Both parties are kind of stuck until they are forced to negotiate. Both parties know the true value. Roland is hoping that we either get promoted to the premier league so that the current owners pay above market value or that we are sold to owners with exorbitant wealth/reckless spending. The club is hoping that Roland or his son gets tired of dealing with it and truly comes to the negotiating table.
Is The Valley & training ground worth £50M? Or is the only reason RD wants that figure is because ESI agreed that price knowing that they would never buy.
RD owns the Valley through retaining ownership of Baton 2010 Ltd which always owned the Freehold and Leases of the Valley and Sparrows Lane.
The 2024 accounts of Baton state the accounting value of the properties as a total of £50m. This figure is unchanged from when RD owned Baton 2010, and Baton 2010 owned the club. This accounting figure of £50m is presumably where he gets his asking price from.
The accounting value of £50m is a combination of the Freehold value and the historic cost of building the stadium. The Freehold value is only £5.8m and the remaining £44m is simply what has been spent historically on building and maintaining the stadium since 1984, less depreciation.
Clearly the £44m is not showing intrinsic value to an owner, just the theoretical (meaningless) value of what in reality is worthless depreciating junk that would cost £xxxm to replace.
How can anyone discuss a rational solution with someone starting from a wholly irrational position.
Out of interest, based on RD's valuation of (I think) £45-50m, does anyone know if there's ever been a split between SL and The Valley?
I often think about this. New training grounds are very expensive but would people be happy if the owners bought The Valley and left SL?
I don’t personally think RD would split them up. It’s not like they’re two random plots - and for us at least, that’s exactly where the problem lies.
Is this £50m figure that RD has seemingly pulled out of thin air (with or without Southall’s input) also a reflection of the fact that he enjoys holding us to ransom, knowing the sentimental value it all holds?
A couple of questions -
What is the true estimated value of both sites?
Could RD issue the Club a Section 21 notice and sell if he received an offer from a third party, or just sell to them with us as sitting tenants?
I'm sure you're right, just think it would allow RD to recoup some money via houses on SL. I don't think it's a goer anyway as building a training base which could home the men's team, women's team, both academies and CACT would be very expensive
Out of interest, based on RD's valuation of (I think) £45-50m, does anyone know if there's ever been a split between SL and The Valley?
I often think about this. New training grounds are very expensive but would people be happy if the owners bought The Valley and left SL?
I don’t personally think RD would split them up. It’s not like they’re two random plots - and for us at least, that’s exactly where the problem lies.
Is this £50m figure that RD has seemingly pulled out of thin air (with or without Southall’s input) also a reflection of the fact that he enjoys holding us to ransom, knowing the sentimental value it all holds?
A couple of questions -
What is the true estimated value of both sites?
Could RD issue the Club a Section 21 notice and sell if he received an offer from a third party, or just sell to them with us as sitting tenants?
I'm sure you're right, just think it would allow RD to recoup some money via houses on SL. I don't think it's a goer anyway as building a training base which could home the men's team, women's team, both academies and CACT would be very expensive
To make money from building houses would mean he would have to set up his own building company. The usual home developers prefer to not share the profit with freeholder owner and if they do it is not a large interest.
Out of interest, based on RD's valuation of (I think) £45-50m, does anyone know if there's ever been a split between SL and The Valley?
I often think about this. New training grounds are very expensive but would people be happy if the owners bought The Valley and left SL?
I don’t personally think RD would split them up. It’s not like they’re two random plots - and for us at least, that’s exactly where the problem lies.
Is this £50m figure that RD has seemingly pulled out of thin air (with or without Southall’s input) also a reflection of the fact that he enjoys holding us to ransom, knowing the sentimental value it all holds?
A couple of questions -
What is the true estimated value of both sites?
Could RD issue the Club a Section 21 notice and sell if he received an offer from a third party, or just sell to them with us as sitting tenants?
I'm sure you're right, just think it would allow RD to recoup some money via houses on SL. I don't think it's a goer anyway as building a training base which could home the men's team, women's team, both academies and CACT would be very expensive
To make money from building houses would mean he would have to set up his own building company. The usual home developers prefer to not share the profit with freeholder owner and if they do it is not a large interest.
I just meant from selling the land to developers, something he can't do now
I can’t see the current owners wanting to part with £40/50m when they can get a lease for another few years. The ground and training ground are worth whatever either side want to call it. The owners are not Charlton supporters they are speculators , better ones than we’ve had for a while but they will flip us as soon as the time is right for them.
At some point the Belgiums family may want to bring things to an end but maybe they like being property owners collecting rent.
I think we will remain at the Valley but there will be no real improvements to the ground that will benefit Charlton other than what is needed by the division we are in.
Hopefully we have a good season and a billionaire Charlton supporter comes in and decides he wants to be a millionaire.
Ideally, you'd redevelop the Jimmy Seed Stand to create a complete bowl-shaped stadium, then relocate away fans to one half behind the goal and into the adjacent corner. I’m not sure whether you'd go for a single tier or try to mirror the North Stand, but either option has to be more achievable than building a new ground. It would finally ‘complete’ the modern Valley in my eyes.
Realistically, you’d only need to think bigger if we somehow spent the next 20-30 years as a regular top-eight Premier League club, selling out The Valley every home game — which feels a long way off.
Ultimately, we might have reached that point in the mid-2000s if we'd managed to keep the momentum of the Curbishley years going. Unfortunately, relegation and over a decade of 'banter era' chaos means we're now starting from well behind square one.
Just a reminder to everyone that when we buy the ground back (staying positive here!) if we were ever to redevelop consideration should be given to the memorial garden that is located in the SE corner of the ground.
Comments
If we weren't to renew the lease, all he's left with is a depreciating asset with ongoing running costs/overheads with no way to sell for more than half the current valuation and a compatible fan base who would make any sale painful and drawn out.
Ergo, whilst he has a lease with us he can pretend he's some sort of football industry guru, that all falls apart the second we walk.
On a very generous day, with a fair wind from the planning gods, you could argue the valley + SL are potentially worth £20m. The valuation from Roland is £44m. When he shuffles off this mortal coil you'd imagine a sensible figure somewhere between those two figures will be negotiated.
HOWEVER I can see zero chance that Greenwich allowing redevelopment of The Valley when its still the club's ground. It would be political suicide to allow a Belgian businessman to profit by redeveloping a major local community asset, when there is a viable football club playing there. And not just in Greenwich.
Indeed I don't think Roland expects to be able to do that either. BUT he will be after a full and excessive price for the assets, way more than they are worth. That's the problem.
Is this £50m figure that RD has seemingly pulled out of thin air (with or without Southall’s input) also a reflection of the fact that he enjoys holding us to ransom, knowing the sentimental value it all holds?
A couple of questions -
What is the true estimated value of both sites?
Could RD issue the Club a Section 21 notice and sell if he received an offer from a third party, or just sell to them with us as sitting tenants?
- Duchatalet would only be able to sell them to a developer subject to planning consent being achieved for a redevelopment. This is highly unlikely / nigh on impossible without CAFC having been relocated. Even if he chucks us out or the lease expires, unless we have found a new permanent home in Greenwich Borough, planning is highly unlikely to be forthcoming.
- if the land is immediately saleable to a developer for £50m (or £45m as per book value in accounts), then Duchatalet has £50m tied up in something which is achieving about 0.5% return based on our £500k a year rent. Even based on a £15m-20m value - which surely any sensible owner would pay. He’s achieving only 3%. He could earn a minimum of 5% interest on whatever cash one does deem him to have tied up in The Valley simply by having the money sat in bonds; more if he actually invested it. So he is arguably losing money all the time he continues to own The Valley.
as others have pointed out, it would cost us way more money than £50m to build a new stadium for ourselves. But everything isn’t weighted in Roland’s favour, both parties are losing currently. It would make sense for them all to come to a deal on it.
Realistically, you’d only need to think bigger if we somehow spent the next 20-30 years as a regular top-eight Premier League club, selling out The Valley every home game — which feels a long way off.
Ultimately, we might have reached that point in the mid-2000s if we'd managed to keep the momentum of the Curbishley years going. Unfortunately, relegation and over a decade of 'banter era' chaos means we're now starting from well behind square one.
That being said, because the cost of building a new stadium is prohibitive, the club doesn’t have a lot of options either. Both parties are kind of stuck until they are forced to negotiate. Both parties know the true value. Roland is hoping that we either get promoted to the premier league so that the current owners pay above market value or that we are sold to owners with exorbitant wealth/reckless spending. The club is hoping that Roland or his son gets tired of dealing with it and truly comes to the negotiating table.
RD owns the Valley through retaining ownership of Baton 2010 Ltd which always owned the Freehold and Leases of the Valley and Sparrows Lane.
The 2024 accounts of Baton state the accounting value of the properties as a total of £50m. This figure is unchanged from when RD owned Baton 2010, and Baton 2010 owned the club. This accounting figure of £50m is presumably where he gets his asking price from.
The accounting value of £50m is a combination of the Freehold value and the historic cost of building the stadium. The Freehold value is only £5.8m and the remaining £44m is simply what has been spent historically on building and maintaining the stadium since 1984, less depreciation.
Clearly the £44m is not showing intrinsic value to an owner, just the theoretical (meaningless) value of what in reality is worthless depreciating junk that would cost £xxxm to replace.
How can anyone discuss a rational solution with someone starting from a wholly irrational position.
The usual home developers prefer to not share the profit with freeholder owner and if they do it is not a large interest.
The Valley, has been the case since 1919.
Those 7 years at Selhurst and Upton Park
will never fade from my memory.
Memorial Garden | Charlton Athletic Football Club
I have several family members whose ashes are scattered there and there are countless others.