Nor are we are not in a Coventry situation where we do not own our ground and pay a high rent. Renting at someone else's ground will never be cheaper, so you can rule that one out.
West Ham currently own the Boleyn Ground, yet they intend to leave that for Olympic Stadium which they will rent. Someone could build / propose to build a nice new arena on the peninsula and offer to rent out the same to us. Not sure you can rule it out.
No, I don't trust as i stated, my view has nothing to do with ownership but that I just don't think having an AVC on a ground ultimately carries any value. Coventry is completely superate to us, they have no ground that the club owns, and even if they did, what value would it hold in the situation of their owners deciding to move the club to Northampton ? I can't see how it would have stopped that ? If there was an AVC on the Ricoh, what difference would it have made ?
My point re Coventry is that it's incredibly easy for clubs owners to cart their teams off to a newer, cheaper venue with little regard for the wishes of fans. Currently the Valley is owned by the same people that own the club, to effect a Coventry scenario they would almost certainly have to sell the Valley and ACV gives us forewarning and the opportunity to organise ourselves, something we do not have now so for me that is what carries weight.
Again, you are correct it is a right to bid, not a right to buy - but we have been very, very clear about that in all of our communications. However a guaranteed right to buy private property doesn't exist in English law right now so lets make the best of the tools available to us ?
Pretty sure I'll be the outliner on this, buy I'm yet to be convinced of these AVCs when it comes to football grounds and whether they hold any value.
Not just Charlton specific, I know these campaigns have cropped up at a handful of clubs over the last six months, and I expect to be the case at 90% of clubs over the next twelve months because they are good publicity for supporters trusts and other fan groups. I just do see what they ultimately offer.
It is the right to bid over a six month period, not a right to buy. It holds the risk of delaying an investor's bid for a club (positive or negative depending on the investor), and it holds no guarantee that if a bid did emerge from a trust or a fan group, it would not just be ignored.
As much as I have criticised the current board and have little trust in them, I am genuinely in the belief that we would not have a ground move forced upon us which wasn't seen to be for the benefit of the club, nor without the majority backing of the supporters.
Nor are we are not in a Coventry situation where we do not own our ground and pay a high rent. Renting at someone else's ground will never be cheaper, so you can rule that one out.
Nor do I ever feel that a supporters group would ever be in a position to raise the several million needed to buy the land of somewhere like the Valley at what would have to be a matched or better bid to anything else.
Nor do I feel that if the Valley did ever fall into unfriendly hands that Greenwich Council would change its stance on its use unless it was for the.betterment of the club and the backing of its supporters.
So as a general statement of 'the Valley is important to supporters' and some publicity for the Trust it serves its purpose, I'm just doubtful due to what would be the complex nature of potential scenarios, it would carry any weight, in my opinion.
You're not alone AFKA. I'm very mindful that we've only heard the positives of holding an ACV and I don't like to sign up to something without understanding the downsides as well. Another might be a constraint upon the club to raise funds charged to The Valley, which Richard Murray et al have successfully achieved in the past.
And what are the alternatives - is there something better? Would a covenant jointly entered by the board and the Trust be more effective in securing its future, for example, by enshrining the rules in law as to how, when and why The Valley might be disposed of?
There are already restrictions on planning, and change of use, which directly affect the value of a ground. I will try and get clarification on whether this would affect borrowing against the asset, unless someone on here can assist who is qualified?
I also hinted above that a covenant would be an excellent idea.
I think this debate is a good one however, that is precisely why we went to our members, then susbcribers, then forums posting this as a question, before we submit forms next week, we also included a no option on the survey
The other thing it won't necessarily stop is the 'Message to Our Supporters' - presumably the club aren't bound to play at the Valley and could in theory make the decision to play elsewhere without consultation whilst retaining the Valley. The Council did us a favour before, but it might not retain the use clauses if we secured an alternative home within the borough, say at the Peninsular.
The other thing it won't necessarily stop is the 'Message to Our Supporters' - presumably the club aren't bound to play at the Valley and could in theory make the decision to play elsewhere without consultation whilst retaining the Valley. The Council did us a favour before, but it might not retain the use clauses if we secured an alternative home within the borough, say at the Peninsular.
Correct - but again we've never pretended that ACV is a magic wand, it isn't. But what it is is a way of ensuring the club have to notify us of an intention to sell the Valley and then give us up to six months to put together a bid. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course there are many, many scenarios where this wouldn't come into play but for those where it would be appropriate isn't it worth supporting ?
I think there is a certain amount of splitting of hairs here, which I do understand but while needing to expose the limitations which I think we have done in our FAQ, fans should also embrace the positives here.
I think its fair to say that had this legislation been in place it might have prevented the piece of paper, and certainly other piece of paper scenarios. Not just legally but with the symbolism attached to the title. I fully expect this legislation to develop, and believe our national stadia should all be more closely linked to the relevant local authorities.
On the technical point presumably the Valley was put up for sale at the time, or soon after?
I think it's a good thing to do despite the reservations that AFKA expressed - and as a local councillor I can tell you that both Labour and Conservative politicians in Thanet regard the relevant legislation as nonsense. I'm sure we're not unique in that.
I support it because anything which impedes the sale of The Valley, even temporarily, must be a good thing - although it doesn't require anything of the owners, except delay. And bearing in mind that the ground is owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited, a subsidiary of Baton which is ultimately controlled by CAFC Holdings Limited, and only leased to CAFC Limited, there may be scope to evade the intent of the trust.
The problem with relying on Greenwich Council planning is that they are not the ultimate arbiters. The government has significantly weakened planning restrictions and altered the balance of power towards developers. Any application for The Valley rejected locally would be likely to end up with the planning inspectorate in Bristol, if not the mayor or the Secretary of State. It would have to be determined in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework - not local sentiment. In short, the rules have changed and are changing.
The biggest constraint on the owners, however, remains the fixed charges on the club's assets.
I think there is a certain amount of splitting of hairs here, which I do understand but while needing to expose the limitations which I think we have done in our FAQ, fans should also embrace the positives here.
I think its fair to say that had this legislation been in place it might have prevented the piece of paper, and certainly other piece of paper scenarios. Not just legally but with the symbolism attached to the title. I fully expect this legislation to develop, and believe our national stadia should all be more closely linked to the relevant local authorities.
On the technical point presumably the Valley was put up for sale at the time, or soon after?
No it wasn't, because the club's case was in part a smokescreen. I think there are a range of scenarios for which this initiative won't be effective, but so what?
For an asset of this size, it seems unlikely that any purchaser looking for a change of use is going to be deterred by a six month delay in transfer of ownership, because scheme development and planning would easily take that long anyway.
Any arrangement for the club to play elsewhere other than sharing a current ground would also take longer to put in place than six months. By far the most likely disposal, in my opinion, is the sale of the freehold underneath the football club lease in order to pay down debt. In my view that should be obstructed anyway, as it would be better at that point for the club to go into administration than lose ownership of the ground.
There are already restrictions on planning, and change of use, which directly affect the value of a ground. I will try and get clarification on whether this would affect borrowing against the asset, unless someone on here can assist who is qualified?
I also hinted above that a covenant would be an excellent idea.
I think this debate is a good one however, that is precisely why we went to our members, then susbcribers, then forums posting this as a question, before we submit forms next week, we also included a no option on the survey
My understanding is that it would give the Trust the right to buy within a 6 month period at a market price (ie in a competitive bid process). On this basis why would it become more difficult to borrow against the ground. Any debt wuold be secured against the value of the ground, and having a party whom have informally stated a possible interest is not likely to detract from value.
In reality no bank will be lending against the ground now anyway IMO. They may stick with an existing loan on the basis the money is already out so unless they wish to be unpopular and force the issue they have no choice but there will hardly be a que of new bank lenders on the asset.
There are already restrictions on planning, and change of use, which directly affect the value of a ground. I will try and get clarification on whether this would affect borrowing against the asset, unless someone on here can assist who is qualified?
I also hinted above that a covenant would be an excellent idea.
I think this debate is a good one however, that is precisely why we went to our members, then susbcribers, then forums posting this as a question, before we submit forms next week, we also included a no option on the survey
My understanding is that it would give the Trust the right to buy within a 6 month period at a market price (ie in a competitive bid process). On this basis why would it become more difficult to borrow against the ground. Any debt wuold be secured against the value of the ground, and having a party whom have informally stated a possible interest is not likely to detract from value.
In reality no bank will be lending against the ground now anyway IMO. They may stick with an existing loan on the basis the money is already out so unless they wish to be unpopular and force the issue they have no choice but there will hardly be a que of new bank lenders on the asset.
Non Issue.
Hi Athletico - where did you get that it gives us the right to buy at market price in the six months ? It absolutely doesn't. It gives us the right to bid in six months. If we bid £10m and some other party bids 10p then the current owners can sell to whichever party they prefer. - this does not infringe on the owner of the property disposing the Valley to whomever and for however much they are fit. All it does is say "this place is special to the local community" and therefore the local community should have at least the opportunity to be told of the intention to sell and given a reasonable time frame to put a bid together.
We've spoken to Supporters Direct and ACV in theory shouldn't affect the value of the property as it doesn't infringe on the owners fundamental rights of disposal.
Perhaps you would be interested to know Airman that Clive Efford who I am sure you are aware is the shadow sports minister, and when I was at the commons a few weeks ago spoke about the community act in regard to football clubs, in fact he is currently giving consideration to 'beefing up' this part of the act, in his words and may be extended . All of course is conjecture, but I would find it somewhat bizzare that the shadow sports minister would not be so keen on this if an application in his own backyard/area and would want to oppose this?
I am due to discuss this with him in the next week or two, and I am sure he would welcome any other interested concerns? After all this is an application to be advised and consult, not stop a sale. Although some of us ...... and that is me as an individual regard Charlton as the Valley, and the Valley is Charlton. To me it is about local democracy, and consultation, not confrontation, and blocking a possible sale?
Quite who or where these takeover people may or may not come from seems to be speculation. We have all heard the rumours, that seem to circulate especially at this time of the year. I hope they are not true? What happened to the one a week or so ago?.... Directors I am sure are quite capable of dealing with this, and the alternative is what do nothing?.
I interviewed a former CAFC chairman a week or so ago, and as you say the loans secured against the club are far more off putting that a possible 6 month delay.
There are already restrictions on planning, and change of use, which directly affect the value of a ground. I will try and get clarification on whether this would affect borrowing against the asset, unless someone on here can assist who is qualified?
I also hinted above that a covenant would be an excellent idea.
I think this debate is a good one however, that is precisely why we went to our members, then susbcribers, then forums posting this as a question, before we submit forms next week, we also included a no option on the survey
My understanding is that it would give the Trust the right to buy within a 6 month period at a market price (ie in a competitive bid process).
Perhaps you would be interested to know Airman that Clive Efford who I am sure you are aware is the shadow sports minister, and when I was at the commons a few weeks ago spoke about the community act in regard to football clubs, in fact he is currently giving consideration to 'beefing up' this part of the act, in his words and may be extended . All of course is conjecture, but I would find it somewhat bizzare that the shadow sports minister would not be so keen on this if an application in his own backyard/area and would want to oppose this?
I am due to discuss this with him in the next week or two, and I am sure he would welcome any other interested concerns? After all this is an application to be advised and consult, not stop a sale. Although some of us ...... and that is me as an individual regard Charlton as the Valley, and the Valley is Charlton. To me it is about local democracy, and consultation, not confrontation, and blocking a possible sale?
Quite who or where these takeover people may or may not come from seems to be speculation. We have all heard the rumours, that seem to circulate especially at this time of the year. I hope they are not true? What happened to the one a week or so ago?.... Directors I am sure are quite capable of dealing with this, and the alternative is what do nothing?.
I interviewed a former CAFC chairman a week or so ago, and as you say the loans secured against the club are far more off putting that a possible 6 month delay.
To me it is a 'no brainer'......
I'm not sure what point you are making re Clive Efford. I do know him and I would expect him to be supportive, as I would expect the council will be - unless pressured by the club and possibly regardless of that The leader of the council is a fixture in the directors' box. But neither the MP nor the council is currently in a position to change the legislation.
As for Martin Simons, I don't think there is any difference between me and him on the club's current situation and the risks attached.
Perhaps you would be interested to know Airman that Clive Efford who I am sure you are aware is the shadow sports minister, and when I was at the commons a few weeks ago spoke about the community act in regard to football clubs, in fact he is currently giving consideration to 'beefing up' this part of the act, in his words and may be extended . All of course is conjecture, but I would find it somewhat bizzare that the shadow sports minister would not be so keen on this if an application in his own backyard/area and would want to oppose this?
I am due to discuss this with him in the next week or two, and I am sure he would welcome any other interested concerns? After all this is an application to be advised and consult, not stop a sale. Although some of us ...... and that is me as an individual regard Charlton as the Valley, and the Valley is Charlton. To me it is about local democracy, and consultation, not confrontation, and blocking a possible sale?
Quite who or where these takeover people may or may not come from seems to be speculation. We have all heard the rumours, that seem to circulate especially at this time of the year. I hope they are not true? What happened to the one a week or so ago?.... Directors I am sure are quite capable of dealing with this, and the alternative is what do nothing?.
I interviewed a former CAFC chairman a week or so ago, and as you say the loans secured against the club are far more off putting that a possible 6 month delay.
To me it is a 'no brainer'......
I'm not sure what point you are making re Clive Efford. I do know him and I would expect him to be supportive, as I would expect the council will be - unless pressured by the club and possibly regardless of that The leader of the council is a fixture in the directors' box. But neither the MP nor the council is currently in a position to change the legislation.
As for Martin Simons, I don't think there is any difference between me and him on the club's current situation and the risks attached.
My personal opinion is that amending the legislation from a right to bid to a right to buy will be diffucult as you would then be crossing the line and interfering in the right of disposal of private property - that's very different to simply asking that the owner of an asset of community value informs that community of their intention to sell. It would also clearly impact on a properties value which could seriously undermine your clubs financial viability. Whilst I'm a huge supporter of obtaining ACV status in its current form, if there was further legislation which offered a right to buy I would have to seriously consider whether I personally thought it was a good thing.
Anyway, that's all hypothetical. I've e-mailed Clive Efford and Nick Raynsford asking for some of their time but I fear politicians may be on holiday at this time of year ?
In either a right to bid or right to buy, what football club would allow a bid to be a success, and allow a rival to set up?
Of course a rival bid could be a spuriously made to put off the community bidder, it would be an interesting situation which of course one hopes would not happen. What is most significant is the notice that would be given. In the piece of paper scenario this didn't happen so as I mentioned earlier perhaps an empty/usage element needs to be added.
The Trust movement generally adopting this will I expect ignite a debate, and possibly more change, another reason why this is important, and we have the luxury of doing this without a crisis situation in play.
Possibly legislation will go down the German route of ownership in some way, but there is nothing stopping Charlton or any other club embracing this model as their USP like Swansea.
It is significant though, a right to buy would mean you could set up a rival organisation in theory - so in that scenario what football club would allow a bid to be a success, then of course a rival bid could be a spurious one to put off the community bidder
Having had time to think about it on the beach, one of the Attractions of doing the ACV is to remind Greenwich Council whose interests they represent. I make it clear that my antipathy towards GC is personal. But Airman refers to something which has been bothering me, the fact that the Council leader is a fixture in the boardroom. It would be naive to assume that he is keeping an eye out on our behalf, since GC has made no effort to communicate its interest in the club to its electorate in recent years. Personally I think an ACV well supported will be a powerful reminder to GC that we have been here before with them.
I'm not sure RBG Council have had many nominations before so not sure how they will deal with ours. There are, incredibly, no listed assets of community value in our borough at the moment.
This image is part of the official "plans" for the peninsula. If anyone thinks that the stadium development shown was just put in by a draughtsman to fill up space then they are deluded. Someone, somewhere has / is given this thought. Not saying its anything to do with Charlton but the idea officially exists.
Pretty sure I'll be the outliner on this, buy I'm yet to be convinced of these AVCs when it comes to football grounds and whether they hold any value.
Not just Charlton specific, I know these campaigns have cropped up at a handful of clubs over the last six months, and I expect to be the case at 90% of clubs over the next twelve months because they are good publicity for supporters trusts and other fan groups. I just do see what they ultimately offer.
It is the right to bid over a six month period, not a right to buy. It holds the risk of delaying an investor's bid for a club (positive or negative depending on the investor), and it holds no guarantee that if a bid did emerge from a trust or a fan group, it would not just be ignored.
As much as I have criticised the current board and have little trust in them, I am genuinely in the belief that we would not have a ground move forced upon us which wasn't seen to be for the benefit of the club, nor without the majority backing of the supporters.
Nor are we are not in a Coventry situation where we do not own our ground and pay a high rent. Renting at someone else's ground will never be cheaper, so you can rule that one out.
Nor do I ever feel that a supporters group would ever be in a position to raise the several million needed to buy the land of somewhere like the Valley at what would have to be a matched or better bid to anything else.
Nor do I feel that if the Valley did ever fall into unfriendly hands that Greenwich Council would change its stance on its use unless it was for the.betterment of the club and the backing of its supporters.
So as a general statement of 'the Valley is important to supporters' and some publicity for the Trust it serves its purpose, I'm just doubtful due to what would be the complex nature of potential scenarios, it would carry any weight, in my opinion.
You're not alone AFKA. I'm very mindful that we've only heard the positives of holding an ACV and I don't like to sign up to something without understanding the downsides as well. Another might be a constraint upon the club to raise funds charged to The Valley, which Richard Murray et al have successfully achieved in the past.
And what are the alternatives - is there something better? Would a covenant jointly entered by the board and the Trust be more effective in securing its future, for example, by enshrining the rules in law as to how, when and why The Valley might be disposed of?
Rik
Regarding a covenant, it is not a silver bullet. Are you aware that there was a covenant on Plough Lane, but Hammam just waved 800k at the council and it was cancelled. I first heard about this in David Conns book, and then I put in a FOI request to Merton Council about it, their answer is Available on the What Do They Know website, and is worth reading.
And sorry, I don't think this Board is remotely interested in creating such a covenant. RM, maybe, but not the others. They would ask themselves, Does this increase our ability to sell at a profit, and clearly it does not.
I'm not sure RBG Council have had many nominations before so not sure how they will deal with ours. There are, incredibly, no listed assets of community value in our borough at the moment.
There's nothing surprising about that as the legislation only came into effect last September. There is also a disincentive for councils to promote the scheme as (from recollection) they are partially liable for consequential loss of value caused by the delay.
I think Greenwich's relationship with CAFC and CACT has been far more positive and productive in recent years than Prague's view allows. The trust delivers the borough's youth service, for a start. Plus the council has been the major customer for use of The Valley's non-matchday facilities, albeit reduced under the austerity regime, as well as a key sponsor.
I'm not sure RBG Council have had many nominations before so not sure how they will deal with ours. There are, incredibly, no listed assets of community value in our borough at the moment.
There's nothing surprising about that as the legislation only came into effect last September. There is also a disincentive for councils to promote the scheme as (from recollection) they are partially liable for consequential loss of value caused by the delay.
I think Greenwich's relationship with CAFC and CACT has been far more positive and productive in recent years than Prague's view allows. The trust delivers the borough's youth service, for a start. Plus the council has been the major customer for use of The Valley's non-matchday facilities, albeit reduced under the austerity regime, as well as a key sponsor.
Fair enough. They are a sponsor? How much do they put in?
But you will excuse me if I don't trust a council which tells an 86 year old lady that her Blue Badge appeal was successful, then a few weeks later tells her they made a mistake, her appeal wasn't successful, but rest Assured the person concerned has been Spoken To, and hey there's always a stage 2 appeal you can do while you are stuck in your house.
If they are capable of that, they are capable of any level of incompetence and disregard for the community they are paid to represent and care for.
I personally think its positive (as I said earlier) for Greenwich to be an interested and active partner in the club, similarly with local businesses. These kind of networks are the way forward.
ACV goes some way to enshrining our ground in the community, and I firmly believe CAFC will be supportive of this application, and the investment and ownership it implies.
Of course football is a money business, although I do not agree that Football is like any other business, as Prague Addick has espoused in the past, there is a commercial value to engagement with fans, and community (well practised at Charlton) not to say we couldn't do more.
Comments
Again, you are correct it is a right to bid, not a right to buy - but we have been very, very clear about that in all of our communications. However a guaranteed right to buy private property doesn't exist in English law right now so lets make the best of the tools available to us ?
And what are the alternatives - is there something better? Would a covenant jointly entered by the board and the Trust be more effective in securing its future, for example, by enshrining the rules in law as to how, when and why The Valley might be disposed of?
I also hinted above that a covenant would be an excellent idea.
I think this debate is a good one however, that is precisely why we went to our members, then susbcribers, then forums posting this as a question, before we submit forms next week, we also included a no option on the survey
I think its fair to say that had this legislation been in place it might have prevented the piece of paper, and certainly other piece of paper scenarios. Not just legally but with the symbolism attached to the title. I fully expect this legislation to develop, and believe our national stadia should all be more closely linked to the relevant local authorities.
On the technical point presumably the Valley was put up for sale at the time, or soon after?
I support it because anything which impedes the sale of The Valley, even temporarily, must be a good thing - although it doesn't require anything of the owners, except delay. And bearing in mind that the ground is owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited, a subsidiary of Baton which is ultimately controlled by CAFC Holdings Limited, and only leased to CAFC Limited, there may be scope to evade the intent of the trust.
The problem with relying on Greenwich Council planning is that they are not the ultimate arbiters. The government has significantly weakened planning restrictions and altered the balance of power towards developers. Any application for The Valley rejected locally would be likely to end up with the planning inspectorate in Bristol, if not the mayor or the Secretary of State. It would have to be determined in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework - not local sentiment. In short, the rules have changed and are changing.
The biggest constraint on the owners, however, remains the fixed charges on the club's assets.
For an asset of this size, it seems unlikely that any purchaser looking for a change of use is going to be deterred by a six month delay in transfer of ownership, because scheme development and planning would easily take that long anyway.
Any arrangement for the club to play elsewhere other than sharing a current ground would also take longer to put in place than six months. By far the most likely disposal, in my opinion, is the sale of the freehold underneath the football club lease in order to pay down debt. In my view that should be obstructed anyway, as it would be better at that point for the club to go into administration than lose ownership of the ground.
In reality no bank will be lending against the ground now anyway IMO. They may stick with an existing loan on the basis the money is already out so unless they wish to be unpopular and force the issue they have no choice but there will hardly be a que of new bank lenders on the asset.
Non Issue.
We've spoken to Supporters Direct and ACV in theory shouldn't affect the value of the property as it doesn't infringe on the owners fundamental rights of disposal.
I am due to discuss this with him in the next week or two, and I am sure he would welcome any other interested concerns?
After all this is an application to be advised and consult, not stop a sale. Although some of us ...... and that is me as an individual regard Charlton as the Valley, and the Valley is Charlton.
To me it is about local democracy, and consultation, not confrontation, and blocking a possible sale?
Quite who or where these takeover people may or may not come from seems to be speculation. We have all heard the rumours, that seem to circulate especially at this time of the year.
I hope they are not true? What happened to the one a week or so ago?.... Directors I am sure are quite capable of dealing with this, and the alternative is what do nothing?.
I interviewed a former CAFC chairman a week or so ago, and as you say the loans secured against the club are far more off putting that a possible 6 month delay.
To me it is a 'no brainer'......
Your understanding is wrong.
As for Martin Simons, I don't think there is any difference between me and him on the club's current situation and the risks attached.
Anyway, that's all hypothetical. I've e-mailed Clive Efford and Nick Raynsford asking for some of their time but I fear politicians may be on holiday at this time of year ?
Of course a rival bid could be a spuriously made to put off the community bidder, it would be an interesting situation which of course one hopes would not happen. What is most significant is the notice that would be given. In the piece of paper scenario this didn't happen so as I mentioned earlier perhaps an empty/usage element needs to be added.
The Trust movement generally adopting this will I expect ignite a debate, and possibly more change, another reason why this is important, and we have the luxury of doing this without a crisis situation in play.
Possibly legislation will go down the German route of ownership in some way, but there is nothing stopping Charlton or any other club embracing this model as their USP like Swansea.
Regarding a covenant, it is not a silver bullet. Are you aware that there was a covenant on Plough Lane, but Hammam just waved 800k at the council and it was cancelled. I first heard about this in David Conns book, and then I put in a FOI request to Merton Council about it, their answer is Available on the What Do They Know website, and is worth reading.
And sorry, I don't think this Board is remotely interested in creating such a covenant. RM, maybe, but not the others. They would ask themselves,
Does this increase our ability to sell at a profit, and clearly it does not.
I think Greenwich's relationship with CAFC and CACT has been far more positive and productive in recent years than Prague's view allows. The trust delivers the borough's youth service, for a start. Plus the council has been the major customer for use of The Valley's non-matchday facilities, albeit reduced under the austerity regime, as well as a key sponsor.
But you will excuse me if I don't trust a council which tells an 86 year old lady that her Blue Badge appeal was successful, then a few weeks later tells her they made a mistake, her appeal wasn't successful, but rest Assured the person concerned has been Spoken To, and hey there's always a stage 2 appeal you can do while you are stuck in your house.
If they are capable of that, they are capable of any level of incompetence and disregard for the community they are paid to represent and care for.
ACV goes some way to enshrining our ground in the community, and I firmly believe CAFC will be supportive of this application, and the investment and ownership it implies.
Of course football is a money business, although I do not agree that Football is like any other business, as Prague Addick has espoused in the past, there is a commercial value to engagement with fans, and community (well practised at Charlton) not to say we couldn't do more.