Who valued Charlton at £40m ?

The general understanding is that Roland has put in £64m in total and is prepared to write off £24m because he accepts that there is an annual cost to running the club and he has to fund those losses.

But where does his £40m valuation come from ?  Apparently, it is underpinned by the physical asset value of The Valley and the Sparrows Lane Training ground together with their respective approved planning applications.

I guess we have to thank some firm of Surveyors for conjuring up this valuation for the land and ‘assets’. However, it seems nigh on impossible that planning permission would ever be granted to build on The Valley without a suitable and very costly alternative being available.
I’m not so sure with the Sparrows Lane complex, but bearing in mind it has already had a decent level of investment in new pitches and it is shared with Footscray Rugby- it is hard to believe that ripping it all up for development is either possible from a planning perspective or feasible.

So, any purchaser has to pay £40m for the right to buy 2 assets that have no development potential and will require significant annual upkeep and maintenance.

On top of that their £40m purchase price brings with it the right to lose around £10m a year in Division 3 and probably £12-£15m a year in the Championship.

Under these circumstances, it is a real struggle to understand why anyone would ever pay £40m for the club.

2 thoughts on “Who valued Charlton at £40m ?

  1. Hi, I’d say that £40m just for the Valley site is a very conservative. There is an old, and still loosely true, adage that land cost is about 1/3 of developed sale value. If we use Upton Gardens, the old Boleyn Ground site as a good, recent example.

    Upton Gardens has “842 new homes” prices are between £350k and £510k. Let’s assume a £400k average price.

    842 x £400,000 = £336.8m. One third of that?

    If I were an aggrieved Roland I’d thin about shutting the club and selling the assets..

    Good blog though!

    Peter

    • Peter – thanks – I’m not arguing with your maths – rather that the council wouldn’t let him develop or anyone else develop either The Valley or Sparrows Lane and therefore the valuation is falatious

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s