Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Follow up on a topic re the Valley - From SD Manu and Pool Trusts seek to protect Home Ground

MUST, the independent Manchester United Supporters’ Trust (MUST), and Spirit of Shankly (SOS), the Liverpool Supporters Union, announced today that they have both submitted separate nominations to Trafford Council and Liverpool City council for Old Trafford and Anfield respectively to be registered as ‘Assets of Community Value’ under the “Assets of Community Value Regulations of the Localism Act (2011)”.

read more


  • I think Craig has suggested the Trust look at that, hasn't he?
  • edited April 2013
    yes, but apparently we think it only gives a 6 months reprieve. Interesting that those two clubs are doing it though
  • Yes all the law does is say that if an asset of community value comes up for sale there must be a six month reprieve where 'the community' can apply to buy it. There is no pressure on the seller to accept the offer even if it is an offer at market value.
  • I think the idea of a six month reprieve just gives us an opportunity to at least be consulted and the designation of "community asset" in itself shows prospective buyers that this isn't just a "normal" piece of property.

    As said I've raised this idea as a possible option to help protect the Valley (although clearly not in of itself a full solution) both here and in TNT 2. I'll be very interested to see how the Liverpool and United Trusts get on.
  • The legislation itself is pretty weak - however there is one other potential advantage...

    From the guidance: "The provisions do not place any restriction on what an owner can do with their property, once listed, if it remains in their ownership. This is because it is planning policy that determines permitted uses for particular sites. However the fact that the site is listed may affect planning decisions – it is open to the Local Planning Authority to decide that listing as an asset of community value is a material consideration if an application for change of use is submitted, considering all the circumstances of the case."

    I.e. if someone ever applied to redevelop the ground as flats, for example, the Council would be expected to at least consider the designation as an Asset of Community Value, although there is no absolute protection.

    I'm sure there is already a national planning regulation (or may even by primary legislation), which states that sport grounds cannot be redeveloped for another use unless alternative facilities are provided, but I can't remember where this originates from.
  • what if such an application were to prevent the development of one of the stands which including flats to finance it, this I believe did happen to CAFC in recent times
  • I think it is worth doing. If nothing else, it would oblige the club to enter into a proper dialogue about any move, and would not imply that the Trust, by requesting this designation is saying "over our dead bodies" but is rather saying " the Valley is more than just a piece of property, any change deserves a full and frank debate"
  • I think we should prioritise this AND a dialogue about where the club is going with the fans. To push on we need the fans to believe and this needs a dialogue which, as we know is just starting.
  • edited April 2013
    razil said:

    what if such an application were to prevent the development of one of the stands which including flats to finance it, this I believe did happen to CAFC in recent times

    It wouldn't as the community (I.e us) would agree that this is a worthwhile development of the community asset - again, it just gives us a say, something I'm not sure anyone with Charlton in their heart can disagree with.
  • edited April 2013
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!