Courtjester, I think the funding for the club this season, no training facilities etc, shows a story of where the priorities are. I would take an educated guess on whether the owner cashes in once the development happens and sells up, or if he carries on with the club. A by product of the development is as you say spot on it will then be a ground that was fit for the 21st century and would assist with our long term sustainability, but that is not the main reason it is being rushed through. Look at Bromley say, the people who developed are not still on the board, they cashed in and moved to other development opportunities.

So referring to my earlier comment, have we made a formal application to play at Tonbridge next season or not?
It had to be done today, so has it?

Thank you The Poet, last season I got my Chelmsford and Cheltenham mixed up, and invented our player David Nhrumah, this season I have got my Truro playing home games in front of 200 crowds at Plymouth mixed up with Taunton playing home games at... Taunton.

As a quick sidestep, Taunton have signed another 2 players from a local college, making it 5 from there to pad out their squad, an experienced defender there has just bought out his contract and left, and looking at their site their squad seems to be 18 players, 5 of them inexperienced college kids. So really interested in the game on Saturday. And keeping an eye on Dartford's result. And maybe Truro (note to self WHO PLAY IN PLYMOUTH) are vulnerable too.

Back on topic, we have taken a step backwards in club comms, they improved, now it is back to silence. We have independently got to work out the logic behind the Tonbridge option, but the club has said nothing officially, maybe they dont know themselves yet. I still think the best thing is to wait until the season ends and we know what division we will play in before committing to a ground share, as we will know that in just 3 months, maybe earlier if we win enough games.

Spot on Courtjester, it has struck me maybe he has done his money, so complaints about finances may be kind of misplaced if so, but then again getting sucked into the Feeney overspending is ultiamately the owners responsibility as he could always have said we had to have a smaller squad of less expensive players.  

-- Edited by Jimmie on Thursday 1st of February 2024 05:39:25 PM

Jimmie wrote:

---

The write up on the current NLS season towards the bottom of the page on this link en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023%E2%80%9324_National_League shows the capacities of the different NLS sides.

I was under the impression one has to have a capacity of 4000 to meet NLS requirements, but the ground capacities are as little as 2000 for Slough, 2500 for Taunton and 4 around the 3000 mark.

---

 Jimmie fyi grade 2 (North & South) capacity 3000 - if promoted to national league 4000 capacity also other criteria has to be met - if relegated 1,950 is  minimum capacity. (source FA Ground Grading guidelines)

-- Edited by morph on Saturday 3rd of February 2024 09:26:08 PM

-- Edited by morph on Saturday 3rd of February 2024 10:24:15 PM

Morph, thanks for the pointer to the official direction that a 3000 capacity is the minimum for NLS. Not sure how Slough have managed to bypass that with their 2000 capacity. www.thefa.com/get-involved/player/ground-grading

I don't mind revealing my motives behind this questioning, I really can't see myself getting to Tonbridge, and guess our attendances could be halved, so lots of others would be in the same boat as me, but still want to be able to watch. It's all new to me, so I am finding out what it is exactly we actually need to have as a ground, in the hope there is some more easy to get to option.

I've been to Cray Valley Paper Mills ground twice and it has a real attraction to me, maybe as we have won both times, but also it has a really well maintained pitch, is local, but it falls short of the 3000 capacity, usually has 1100, but they managed to increase it to 1500 for their recent Charlton game, but doubtful it could expand up to 3000. So the search goes on.

The other London NLS sides Hampton and Aveley in a way are as hard to get to as Tonbridge, so this is one of those things where there is no simple answer.

WUSA meeting suggested Chatham Town, looking into it, that is a really good suggestion, its capacity is 5000, and is a single train journey away, closer and easier and quicker to get to than Tonbridge, not sure if the club has explored that option directly with Chatham.

As Polo says Chatham have great crowds so do not need us. I refer to my post on page one of this thread. It is not where the club or fans want to go but who wants to take us. So far as I can see only Tonbridge Angels are up for letting us go there. Of course the ideal situation would have been to build a new stadium next door and once done turn PVR into the cricket ground. But I doubt if the cricket club would like that.

I can see the reasoning of going to Tonbridge - but only when we have to i.e. when we get planning permission approved and the residents objections heard. Until then why not spend the money spent we would spend at Tonbridge and the money we would lose in the bars, gates in keeping PVR going? 

I can't help thinking the whole line of 'PVR will be condemned' is a smokescreen. Keep the maintenance up and it won't be condemned. If there are serious concerns about the ground why has the club or council told us nothing? 

-- Edited by GaryH on Monday 5th of February 2024 08:15:05 AM

wingsmad wrote:

---

Dulwich could be a option again not ideal but easier to get to then Tonbridge, they shared with Fisher for a few years so might be up for it, i doubt at Tonbridge we would bet more then 150-200 people simply wont go there, its also a long walk from the station 

---

 I would prefer Dulwich as I can get a train to Denmark Hill and it is dog friendly. Only problem is they are due to move out so their ground can be redeveloped. 

Just realised, the latest posts on the development don't mention the Tonbridge option also brings possibilities, yet to be decided on, of maybe having coaches arranged to get to Tonbridge, so it may not be a journey dependant on public transport. So there is that potential positive to bear in mind, to balance some of the negatives.

None of that has been decided on, so may not happen if Tonbridge is our new home, but it could be a bit of a softener for that otherwise tricky journey, as I know from experience of popping down to Hastings a lot at weekends that train line often has weekend engineering works and bus replacement services for part of the route, which adds time onto the journey.

forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/96574/london-senior-cup-2023-24/p4

This makes interesting reading re the ground and E&B's position on it.

I imagine they are holding out as any move away from PVR would severely reduce the income they get from their clubhouse.

Jimmie wrote:

---

Does that translate as Erith want to carry on playing at PVR for virtually free?

And carry on not putting the lights on in their toilet so fans have to piss in the dark?

---

 That would not surprise me one little bit.

I'd be amazed if the E&B statement was written by a human. Straight off an AI website, including the American spellings.

The plans for the Club bar are for a unit that is just 109m2 so just over 10 meters each way. That is not big enough to make it commercially viable when you take out space for the storage/behind bar area and some toilets. The club should insist that we also have the other commercial space and that, combined with the club shop space gives a space of 260 m2. That would be enough for a bar/ restaurant with a kitchen and toilets which would be a viable 7 day a week operation. I'd swap the location of the club shop with one of the Food Outlets and have a fast food outlet in the bar.

I'd also like clarification that the Club/VIP room could be used by general supporters- particularly at half time when changing ends. There are already 4 Hospitality Rooms to keep the prawn sandwich brigade happy.

This would secure the clubs long term future as a club at the top end of Non-League football. However I think 3 years is a realistic time frame for the development and it may take another 3 years to even start. So unless there are guarantees that the club can continue for that long away from PVR I just can't support it.  If Welling United supporters tell the council that they disprove of the plans then I don't see how they can possibly proceed and say its in the community's best interests.

Tower wrote:

---

I'd be amazed if the E&B statement was written by a human. Straight off an AI website, including the American spellings.

---

 Noticed this as well, Tower. Ridiculous spellings. Seem to have a massive problem with the letter 'u'.

In the name of soccer.

Danson Mark wrote:

---

Is it still a three sided stadium? I can't see any obvious room for standing at the road end.

---

 No there is terracing behind both goals. The Danson End terracing is lopsided, but at least there is some there. Also the entrie of the current E&B bar has been converted into supporters cycle storage which seems a complete waste.

Chris wrote:

---

Danson Mark wrote:

---

Is it still a three sided stadium? I can't see any obvious room for standing at the road end.

---

 No there is terracing behind both goals. The Danson End terracing is lopsided, but at least there is some there. Also the entrie of the current E&B bar has been converted into supporters cycle storage which seems a complete waste.

---

 The raised terracing at road end does not extend the whole way, more just the length of the penalty area....rest of it is pitch level standing.

Objections to the application can only be made on planning grounds. i.e. out of character with area, destroying ancient views, being dangerous etc. Because the terrace does not extend far enough for fans or we do not like the park end because it is too small are not grounds for objecting.

Jimmie wrote:

---

The most important feature of our ground will remain unchanged post development, we will still have our bus stop in front of our ground!

---

 Dont count your chickens. It will be closed during the construction works and a temporary stop located. If the site of the temporary stop proves to be of benefit to the locals it could remain in situ.