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.
I don't believe that's got anything to do with us, but even if we ended up there, it could hardly be equated to us moving to Selhurst or Coventry moving to Northampton etc.
My impression is that Greenwich council have a decent relationship with us
The ACV doesn't rule out a move to a bigger ground, (whether that is in the peninsula or elsewhere) it just ensures consultation via the fact that the potential sale is made public.
Does it impact the value of The Valley or the club as a whole? Not sure on that but best ask a football expert or property expert... Information I have received is points to the Valley being worth more as part of a live and thriving football club on the fringes of the Premier League than it is as a commercial venture.
If CAFC never attains promotion to the Premier League and continues to lose money then the cost of repairs and upkeep in 15-20 years time is a different question... but all of the speculation around CAFC finances and possible sale have been somewhat more short term in perspective!
Does the ACV solve everything to do with CAFC finances and the wider Championship issues? No - absolutely not!
But it is a start for the supporters Trust... to be judged on its activities rather than just it's potential. To be judged on the fact that it gets out there with something like ACV as well as kicking off an informed debate on Financial Fair Play. And going public back in March with an educated estimate (accurately?) last seasons running losses.
And to survey thousands of fans every season to see what they think.
Yes, individuals can do each of these activities but a Trust not only executes the above but builds up reserves for future activities so that it should be able to make a bigger contribution each and every quarter... as more members, subscribers and volunteers come on board. And all of this without resorting to speculation or waiting for some future crisis.
On that note, donations to the campaign fund have just topped £700 and the e-petition about to go through the 300 mark after just 48 hours - are we doing the right thing? Too early to say but we are here to evaluate the situation and come up with ideas which can translate into positive activity like ACV.
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.
Hi Prague, I was asking a question. Would be remiss just to accept what others say without question - we've done a bit too much of that in our history wouldn't you say? :-)
I don't imagine a covenant is a silver bullet, and I doubt very much that TJ et al would come running to us to sign one. Equally they wouldn't have proposed the idea of an ACV, but they might be prepared to accept it or even support it given its relatively limited impact. I mean, consultation, right to bid - means nothing in terms of the final decision really beyond a delay.
And I'm led to believe the brown envelope is alive and well in the corridors of local government.
I'm happy to embrace the benefits of the ACV, but I fear that it may encourage a false comfort and maybe even complacency. I'd be even happier if we acknowledged it as a stepping stone towards something more concrete - even ownership as a long term ambition.
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.
As with the NHS you'll always be able to find shocking examples of poor service/care because you are dealing with a large organisation with complex management and accountability structures. Do you seriously imagine the story you quote was a political decision or that politicians were anywhere near it? They will be all over this application from the trust, on the other hand.
The contractual relationship between the council and the club is complex and wasn't in my remit, but I believe they put in £50k cash a year or thereabouts. It's probably in their published accounts.
I honestly think ACV should not only be endorsed, but embraced by CAFC, and written into our constitution that fans would be fully independently consulted if a ground move were ever mooted, one would underpin the other.
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.
Hi Prague, I was asking a question. Would be remiss just to accept what others say without question - we've done a bit too much of that in our history wouldn't you say? :-)
I don't imagine a covenant is a silver bullet, and I doubt very much that TJ et al would come running to us to sign one. Equally they wouldn't have proposed the idea of an ACV, but they might be prepared to accept it or even support it given its relatively limited impact. I mean, consultation, right to bid - means nothing in terms of the final decision really beyond a delay.
And I'm led to believe the brown envelope is alive and well in the corridors of local government.
I'm happy to embrace the benefits of the ACV, but I fear that it may encourage a false comfort and maybe even complacency. I'd be even happier if we acknowledged it as a stepping stone towards something more concrete - even ownership as a long term ambition.
Rik, given that we are proposing this and as the community group registering will 'own' it, and that we are in our first communications suggesting that it is only a first step, I don't really see your justification for that. But I am perfectly happy for you to make it your job to remind me or whoever is on the CAS Trust Board, of that. Who watches the watchers? You might even consider standing for co-option and later election yourself, I know the current Chair aint gonna last forever.. and is keen to back to his allotment and DIY fence building.
Be assured though eyes are very much wide open on this, we must never be complacent, but as somone earlier said, this is a focal point and one generated by and owned by the fans independently, and a great start for the youngling that is CAS Trust.
This application is an expression of wish to protect The Valley.
For me Charlton is The Valley and The Valley is Charlton and I cannot see myself following the Club elsewhere.
How powerful an expression has been debated above but, in my opinion, it does no harm for a substantial number of fans to support this application as an expression of wish if not more.
I have therefore signed and thanks to those progressing it.
This application is an expression of wish to protect The Valley.
For me Charlton is The Valley and The Valley is Charlton and I cannot see myself following the Club elsewhere.
How powerful an expression has been debated above but, in my opinion it does no harm for a substantial number of fans to support this application as an expression of wish if not more.
I have therefore signed and thanks to those progressing it.
Well done Len.Agree 100 percent on a personal level.
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.
Well When I rang Mr Smith at the council in the early spring, after it took the council a week to find out who it was that managed this policy, to get some background he claimed that no one had requested this previously. I was interested in the criteria, knowing a couple of the councillors I wondered if this would be dealt like a planning application , and then voted on by the council either by support or decline. As it is a new act , bravely displayed by there website a pity there press officer did not know who was the officer responsible? Re: Clive and Nick, it is entirely up to them to come to there own conclusions, as I am sure they will, regardless of any representation , but as the shadow sports minister who may be charged with drafting or as I say amending 'beefing up' the Localism act in regard to football, when I spoke to him he seemed very supportive of trust's and ACV. As the meeting was called by our governing body and included representatives from Arsenal, Liverpool, Man Utd and Leeds as well as a range of MP's, and former Football commons select com, it seems that with the recent example's of football overspend, and fan involvement in football will be a part of the opposition policy to try and address these issues. Good luck to them? When pressed the other labour MP seemed a little vague? But as David Conn who got the largest approval of the day stated the last thing we need is another task force, because the football task force that previously made suggestions have not seen those come about, 'time for action not words' which the labour politician's nodded compliantly.
There is a bloke in charge of the list now Ken (spoke to him last week) - he said they're considering two applications for ACV status at the moment but couldn't tell me what properties they related to.
I honestly think ACV should not only be endorsed, but embraced by CAFC, and written into our constitution that fans would be fully independently consulted if a ground move were ever mooted, one would underpin the other.
What would the club (by which I mean the board) possibly gain by endorsing this? If, as others have suggested the board are the ones who are going to flog the club and screw us over, why would they embrace something that would slow down/stop them from achieving their aims?
I honestly think ACV should not only be endorsed, but embraced by CAFC, and written into our constitution that fans would be fully independently consulted if a ground move were ever mooted, one would underpin the other.
What would the club (by which I mean the board) possibly gain by endorsing this? If, as others have suggested the board are the ones who are going to flog the club and screw us over, why would they embrace something that would slow down/stop them from achieving their aims?
That's a very big if !
Great idea though - take a failing football club and tip in £15M, get it promoted and then to within 3 pts of a shot at Wembley play-offs then start taking the whole thing apart!
I might be wrong and we will only know for certain in the future but I am convinced CAFC is worth much less dead than alive
some more comments as we trundle past 300 ... "Good luck - I really appreciate the hard work you people are putting to make sure our club stays for the future generations to enjoy (or not - delete certain seasons) as much as I have over the years!" "Great initiative, good work with this and the trust for which I am going to join" "Charlton Athletic is very much a family club which is a rarity in a large City; this commodity is gold dust and should be protected & cherished for all time" "can you send me informatiom via e-mail on becoming a full member"
I honestly think ACV should not only be endorsed, but embraced by CAFC, and written into our constitution that fans would be fully independently consulted if a ground move were ever mooted, one would underpin the other.
What would the club (by which I mean the board) possibly gain by endorsing this? If, as others have suggested the board are the ones who are going to flog the club and screw us over, why would they embrace something that would slow down/stop them from achieving their aims?
That's a very big if !
Great idea though - take a failing football club and tip in £15M, get it promoted and then to within 3 pts of a shot at Wembley play-offs then start taking the whole thing apart!
I don't for a second think this is their plan, quite the opposite, I think we would have seen a very different CAFC has the 'Cash' not been withdrawn, I believe the intentions where always good.
I honestly think ACV should not only be endorsed, but embraced by CAFC, and written into our constitution that fans would be fully independently consulted if a ground move were ever mooted, one would underpin the other.
What would the club (by which I mean the board) possibly gain by endorsing this? If, as others have suggested the board are the ones who are going to flog the club and screw us over, why would they embrace something that would slow down/stop them from achieving their aims?
That's a very big if !
Great idea though - take a failing football club and tip in £15M, get it promoted and then to within 3 pts of a shot at Wembley play-offs then start taking the whole thing apart!
I don't for a second think this is their plan, quite the opposite, I think we would have seen a very different CAFC has the 'Cash' not been withdrawn, I believe the intentions where always good.
Maybe, but what about the intentions of the next owners ? Or the ones after that, or the ones after that....
I'd imagine most people looking at this site are emotionally invested in Charlton and it's a life time commitment, you'll literally be dead before you cash that investment out. Owners with only a financial stake sometimes have quite different priorities - why not protect yours any way you can.
There is a bloke in charge of the list now Ken (spoke to him last week) - he said they're considering two applications for ACV status at the moment but couldn't tell me what properties they related to. </blockquote phew!.... the 'royal borough' as it likes to call itself these days ( how times change) do have a whole series of examples and guidance notes, obviously I jumped the gun! http://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/info/200101/voluntary_organisations/1292/assets_of_community_value Of course how my grandfather would view the idea of the organisation that he worked for after he returned from the first world war calling itself 'royal' seems like another world, in charge of monuments and public buildings, he had his work cut out trying to preserve old buildings,but then he was an Arsenal supporter ?. Trouble is there were 2-1 of those when I grew up on Springfield, and better not mention the wet spam brigade? I am glad that the council have had a couple of building applications? ......The Queens house, Charlton House,and the Observatory are a few you would like to think should be nominated. I am sure there are many more.....
Ken - The Queen's House, Charlton House, the Observatory and many other buildings in the borough are given protection by Statutory Listing by English Heritage. ACV is designed for places of no particular architectural merit that have a community value, like some pubs. I've read all the posts on this thread today and can't see a single reason why ACV status for The Valley could possibly disadvantage us, the fans. Well done to the Trust for getting this subject aired and moving - all power to your elbows.
sorry for being thick but it seems to me as if there is something that maybe people would like to say but feel they cant
Do you believe that the Valley is in a precarious position where the sale of the ground and land for anything other than the purpose of cafc playing football there is now more likely than it was before if so then where or what has happened for this to be an issue now
in my opinion I would have rather when the trust was formed that this was your first agenda point that you made it quite clear that the first thing the trust wishes to do is secure an ACV on the land immediately,
I don't understand tbh the timing of it
and it makes me nervous, as to the reasons behind why it needs to be done
I really don't think there's any cause for nerves, NLA. It has cropped up now simply because ACV has only just been invented. A couple of local pubs on my turf have very recently been afforded ACV status by the council, to make it more difficult for developers to stomp in, close the pub and convert it to "apartments" or yet another Tesco Metro.
sorry for being thick but it seems to me as if there is something that maybe people would like to say but feel they cant
Do you believe that the Valley is in a precarious position where the sale of the ground and land for anything other than the purpose of cafc playing football there is now more likely than it was before if so then where or what has happened for this to be an issue now
in my opinion I would have rather when the trust was formed that this was your first agenda point that you made it quite clear that the first thing the trust wishes to do is secure an ACV on the land immediately,
I don't understand tbh the timing of it
and it makes me nervous, as to the reasons behind why it needs to be done
Hi NLA,
The Trust wasn't set up with the intention of securing ACV for the Valley. We began meeting in a pub in New Eltham last July and this legislation actually only came into effect in September - we hadn't even heard about it until around Feb/March this year when Supporters Direct (who represent the trust movement in this country) put us on to it.
What the trust was formed to do, according to point three of our mission statement (www.castrust.org);
" Preserve the long term future of CAFC, its history, culture, values and identity in our community."
And as the Valley is a huge part of all of those things it seems right that we would seek Asset of Community Value status now that the legislation is in effect and available to us.
Just seemed strange that a week or so after the last failed investment opportunity that this has come up now
I know that since RM first thought about the peninsular it has never gone away and many times for me to be comfortable it has raised its head with random threads by random posters it has reappeared my one worry about the trust is that we may not be told everything in plain terms some of the sensitive info you may aquire whilst you try to forge relationships witn the club
To me the valley is our home and any move away would be the end of cafc in my eyes and mind if we moved away
We are in no need for a bigger ground nor will we ever be as tge club is not a club that will ever attract home gates of more than 30k max
Personally i am sick to death of investment and take overs and i dont want to know anynore until its done and dusted
But if the valley was ever at risk then i would hope and believe that regardless of trust and confidentiality agreements with the current or any custodian of cafc you would speak out quickly concisely and in a language that i and others like me would understand
I trust what you do and say and i signed the survey last night in favour of the ACV like you ask
But please dont ever sit on any info of the only thing that represents cafc more than the name itself as that would be very very wrong
Just seemed strange that a week or so after the last failed investment opportunity that this has come up now
I know that since RM first thought about the peninsular it has never gone away and many times for me to be comfortable it has raised its head with random threads by random posters it has reappeared my one worry about the trust is that we may not be told everything in plain terms some of the sensitive info you may aquire whilst you try to forge relationships witn the club
To me the valley is our home and any move away would be the end of cafc in my eyes and mind if we moved away
We are in no need for a bigger ground nor will we ever be as tge club is not a club that will ever attract home gates of more than 30k max
Personally i am sick to death of investment and take overs and i dont want to know anynore until its done and dusted
But if the valley was ever at risk then i would hope and believe that regardless of trust and confidentiality agreements with the current or any custodian of cafc you would speak out quickly concisely and in a language that i and others like me would understand
I trust what you do and say and i signed the survey last night in favour of the ACV like you ask
But please dont ever sit on any info of the only thing that represents cafc more than the name itself as that would be very very wrong
Many thanks nla
Awesome, many thanks for signing the survey.
I'm vice chair of the fledgling trust and I absolutely guarantee that I know of no current plans to move us from the Valley. But that's precisely the reason we need ACV, if there were plans then they could execute the sale and never have to give us any inkling of what was going on prior to its completion.
As you said above there will always be speculation and as London grows land which was once on the outskirts (I.e our part of the world) suddenly becomes much more desirable. Not so long ago "15 minutes to London Bridge by train" would have been seen as something which lowered a property's value, now they advertise flats in Kidbrooke (Kidbrooke!) using it as a sales pitch.
The Valley is in an area which, particularly since some wasteland on the peninsula was turned into the most visited music venue on earth, will come under more and more pressure from developers. We could rely on the owners (whomever they may be at the time) to stick up for us and say "no, we aren't moving" or we could rely on the council to stick up for us and say "no, you cant use the land for housing" or we could take matters into our own hands as our supporters have in the past and protect our home anyway we can. Sure ACV isn't everything we'd want it to be, but it's a damn sight more than we have right now.
Just seemed strange that a week or so after the last failed investment opportunity that this has come up now
I know that since RM first thought about the peninsular it has never gone away and many times for me to be comfortable it has raised its head with random threads by random posters it has reappeared my one worry about the trust is that we may not be told everything in plain terms some of the sensitive info you may aquire whilst you try to forge relationships witn the club
To me the valley is our home and any move away would be the end of cafc in my eyes and mind if we moved away
We are in no need for a bigger ground nor will we ever be as tge club is not a club that will ever attract home gates of more than 30k max
Personally i am sick to death of investment and take overs and i dont want to know anynore until its done and dusted
But if the valley was ever at risk then i would hope and believe that regardless of trust and confidentiality agreements with the current or any custodian of cafc you would speak out quickly concisely and in a language that i and others like me would understand
I trust what you do and say and i signed the survey last night in favour of the ACV like you ask
But please dont ever sit on any info of the only thing that represents cafc more than the name itself as that would be very very wrong
Many thanks nla
Hi NLA Nothing at all strange, this has been a consideration for several weeks, like most things it is about timing. I assure you that there is nothing sinister, this week, any more than last month, or the month before. I think my colours have truly been nailed to the post on this one, as I have posted endlessly on here, and on Charlton Life, and Charlton live when the original idea of moving to the Peninsular first reared it's head?. Frankly I bore to death the trust members in why the Valley is so crucial, and I am not alone in this view? You of course would be welcome to be on the trust as a co-opted member, subject to being elected. The trust needs critical friends, it needs helpers, and of course supporters/members as they are the lifeblood. Speaking personally I would welcome your participation, come along to the next meeting and have a say, no one is going to say no? So come along and introduce yourself, even if it is a one off.....
Spot on Ken, and we're going to have a stall at the Open Day on Sunday so if anyone wants to come down and chat about this face to face (just realised that sounds like I'm offering you out!) or ask any other questions about the Trust then feel free.
I also know of no plan to move. This is simply good sense to take advantage of legislation that gives fans more of a say in matters, so compelling are the arguments that its really a question of why not.
There may well be no 'official plan to move' but there is no doubt this will undoubtedly crop up within the next ten years, particularly if fortunes improve on the pitch.
There have been provisional plans for over a year of a large sports stadium on the peninsular by the O2, which Charlton were keen to have Peter Varney involved to be representing the club. I've no idea since he has moved on whether anyone is continuing this.
One thing it is pretty obvious to take a sizeable punt on. Jiminez and co are supposedly actively trying to offload the club. Showing the potential future route of the club and potential expansion opportunities I would imagine is being used as a pretty big selling point. I suspect this was potentially one of this groups main aims on acquiring the club, but for one reason or t'other, I don't think they will be around long enough to see it through.
So unless something emerges in house or within the 'Charlton family' in terms of ownership change, its fair to assume there is a good chance this would be a strong consideration of a future owner.
The advantages / disadvantages of staying / leaving The Valley at some point in the future should be one for a completely seperate thread to this one though.
I agree, and a highly emotive one at that, and not one that i would like to give an opinion on without knowing the full facts for both arguments. Ultimately I believe it would be for Charlton fans as a whole to decide on rather than the Trust or any other group. The way I see it is the Trust would try and establish the full facts for an independent consultation, and possibly recommend which option was preferable, then let the fans decide.
At the moment, though, such a thread would be academic anyway, because no one is Interested in our opinion. Just like in 1985.Do you know what the leader of GC talks about when he's in the boardroom each week? Maybe just sponsorship issues. Maybe not.
ACV gives us six months to be part of any conversation about leaving the Valley. That is six months more than we had in 1985. If you'd been around then to have had that bloody piece of paper shoved into your hands, you'd know how people like me see this. We felt absolutely helpless that day, furiously impotent. Lets learn from history.
Comments
My impression is that Greenwich council have a decent relationship with us
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/sport/10398382.Addicks_community_scheme_wins_high_praise_from_Greenwich_leader/
Does it impact the value of The Valley or the club as a whole? Not sure on that but best ask a football expert or property expert... Information I have received is points to the Valley being worth more as part of a live and thriving football club on the fringes of the Premier League than it is as a commercial venture.
If CAFC never attains promotion to the Premier League and continues to lose money then the cost of repairs and upkeep in 15-20 years time is a different question... but all of the speculation around CAFC finances and possible sale have been somewhat more short term in perspective!
Does the ACV solve everything to do with CAFC finances and the wider Championship issues? No - absolutely not!
But it is a start for the supporters Trust... to be judged on its activities rather than just it's potential. To be judged on the fact that it gets out there with something like ACV as well as kicking off an informed debate on Financial Fair Play. And going public back in March with an educated estimate (accurately?) last seasons running losses.
And to survey thousands of fans every season to see what they think.
Yes, individuals can do each of these activities but a Trust not only executes the above but builds up reserves for future activities so that it should be able to make a bigger contribution each and every quarter... as more members, subscribers and volunteers come on board. And all of this without resorting to speculation or waiting for some future crisis.
On that note, donations to the campaign fund have just topped £700 and the e-petition about to go through the 300 mark after just 48 hours - are we doing the right thing? Too early to say but we are here to evaluate the situation and come up with ideas which can translate into positive activity like ACV.
I don't imagine a covenant is a silver bullet, and I doubt very much that TJ et al would come running to us to sign one. Equally they wouldn't have proposed the idea of an ACV, but they might be prepared to accept it or even support it given its relatively limited impact. I mean, consultation, right to bid - means nothing in terms of the final decision really beyond a delay.
And I'm led to believe the brown envelope is alive and well in the corridors of local government.
I'm happy to embrace the benefits of the ACV, but I fear that it may encourage a false comfort and maybe even complacency. I'd be even happier if we acknowledged it as a stepping stone towards something more concrete - even ownership as a long term ambition.
The contractual relationship between the council and the club is complex and wasn't in my remit, but I believe they put in £50k cash a year or thereabouts. It's probably in their published accounts.
Be assured though eyes are very much wide open on this, we must never be complacent, but as somone earlier said, this is a focal point and one generated by and owned by the fans independently, and a great start for the youngling that is CAS Trust.
For me Charlton is The Valley and The Valley is Charlton and I cannot see myself following the Club elsewhere.
How powerful an expression has been debated above but, in my opinion, it does no harm for a substantial number of fans to support this application as an expression of wish if not more.
I have therefore signed and thanks to those progressing it.
Re: Clive and Nick, it is entirely up to them to come to there own conclusions, as I am sure they will, regardless of any representation , but as the shadow sports minister who may be charged with drafting or as I say amending 'beefing up' the Localism act in regard to football, when I spoke to him he seemed very supportive of trust's and ACV.
As the meeting was called by our governing body and included representatives from Arsenal, Liverpool, Man Utd and Leeds as well as a range of MP's, and former Football commons select com, it seems that with the recent example's of football overspend, and fan involvement in football will be a part of the opposition policy to try and address these issues.
Good luck to them? When pressed the other labour MP seemed a little vague? But as David Conn who got the largest approval of the day stated the last thing we need is another task force, because the football task force that previously made suggestions have not seen those come about, 'time for action not words' which the labour politician's nodded compliantly.
What would the club (by which I mean the board) possibly gain by endorsing this? If, as others have suggested the board are the ones who are going to flog the club and screw us over, why would they embrace something that would slow down/stop them from achieving their aims?
Great idea though - take a failing football club and tip in £15M, get it promoted and then to within 3 pts of a shot at Wembley play-offs then start taking the whole thing apart!
I might be wrong and we will only know for certain in the future but I am convinced CAFC is worth much less dead than alive
"Good luck - I really appreciate the hard work you people are putting to make sure our club stays for the future generations to enjoy (or not - delete certain seasons) as much as I have over the years!"
"Great initiative, good work with this and the trust for which I am going to join"
"Charlton Athletic is very much a family club which is a rarity in a large City; this commodity is gold dust and should be protected & cherished for all time"
"can you send me informatiom via e-mail on becoming a full member"
I'd imagine most people looking at this site are emotionally invested in Charlton and it's a life time commitment, you'll literally be dead before you cash that investment out. Owners with only a financial stake sometimes have quite different priorities - why not protect yours any way you can.
Do you believe that the Valley is in a precarious position where the sale of the ground and land for anything other than the purpose of cafc playing football there is now more likely than it was before if so then where or what has happened for this to be an issue now
in my opinion I would have rather when the trust was formed that this was your first agenda point that you made it quite clear that the first thing the trust wishes to do is secure an ACV on the land immediately,
I don't understand tbh the timing of it
and it makes me nervous, as to the reasons behind why it needs to be done
The Trust wasn't set up with the intention of securing ACV for the Valley. We began meeting in a pub in New Eltham last July and this legislation actually only came into effect in September - we hadn't even heard about it until around Feb/March this year when Supporters Direct (who represent the trust movement in this country) put us on to it.
What the trust was formed to do, according to point three of our mission statement (www.castrust.org);
" Preserve the long term future of CAFC, its history, culture, values and identity in our community."
And as the Valley is a huge part of all of those things it seems right that we would seek Asset of Community Value status now that the legislation is in effect and available to us.
I know that since RM first thought about the peninsular it has never gone away and many times for me to be comfortable it has raised its head with random threads by random posters it has reappeared my one worry about the trust is that we may not be told everything in plain terms some of the sensitive info you may aquire whilst you try to forge relationships witn the club
To me the valley is our home and any move away would be the end of cafc in my eyes and mind if we moved away
We are in no need for a bigger ground nor will we ever be as tge club is not a club that will ever attract home gates of more than 30k max
Personally i am sick to death of investment and take overs and i dont want to know anynore until its done and dusted
But if the valley was ever at risk then i would hope and believe that regardless of trust and confidentiality agreements with the current or any custodian of cafc you would speak out quickly concisely and in a language that i and others like me would understand
I trust what you do and say and i signed the survey last night in favour of the ACV like you ask
But please dont ever sit on any info of the only thing that represents cafc more than the name itself as that would be very very wrong
Many thanks nla
I'm vice chair of the fledgling trust and I absolutely guarantee that I know of no current plans to move us from the Valley. But that's precisely the reason we need ACV, if there were plans then they could execute the sale and never have to give us any inkling of what was going on prior to its completion.
As you said above there will always be speculation and as London grows land which was once on the outskirts (I.e our part of the world) suddenly becomes much more desirable. Not so long ago "15 minutes to London Bridge by train" would have been seen as something which lowered a property's value, now they advertise flats in Kidbrooke (Kidbrooke!) using it as a sales pitch.
The Valley is in an area which, particularly since some wasteland on the peninsula was turned into the most visited music venue on earth, will come under more and more pressure from developers. We could rely on the owners (whomever they may be at the time) to stick up for us and say "no, we aren't moving" or we could rely on the council to stick up for us and say "no, you cant use the land for housing" or we could take matters into our own hands as our supporters have in the past and protect our home anyway we can. Sure ACV isn't everything we'd want it to be, but it's a damn sight more than we have right now.
Nothing at all strange, this has been a consideration for several weeks, like most things it is about timing.
I assure you that there is nothing sinister, this week, any more than last month, or the month before.
I think my colours have truly been nailed to the post on this one, as I have posted endlessly on here, and on Charlton Life, and Charlton live when the original idea of moving to the Peninsular first reared it's head?. Frankly I bore to death the trust members in why the Valley is so crucial, and I am not alone in this view?
You of course would be welcome to be on the trust as a co-opted member, subject to being elected.
The trust needs critical friends, it needs helpers, and of course supporters/members as they are the lifeblood.
Speaking personally I would welcome your participation, come along to the next meeting and have a say, no one is going to say no?
So come along and introduce yourself, even if it is a one off.....
There have been provisional plans for over a year of a large sports stadium on the peninsular by the O2, which Charlton were keen to have Peter Varney involved to be representing the club. I've no idea since he has moved on whether anyone is continuing this.
One thing it is pretty obvious to take a sizeable punt on. Jiminez and co are supposedly actively trying to offload the club. Showing the potential future route of the club and potential expansion opportunities I would imagine is being used as a pretty big selling point. I suspect this was potentially one of this groups main aims on acquiring the club, but for one reason or t'other, I don't think they will be around long enough to see it through.
So unless something emerges in house or within the 'Charlton family' in terms of ownership change, its fair to assume there is a good chance this would be a strong consideration of a future owner.
The advantages / disadvantages of staying / leaving The Valley at some point in the future should be one for a completely seperate thread to this one though.
your last sentence is absolutely correct.
At the moment, though, such a thread would be academic anyway, because no one is Interested in our opinion. Just like in 1985.Do you know what the leader of GC talks about when he's in the boardroom each week? Maybe just sponsorship issues. Maybe not.
ACV gives us six months to be part of any conversation about leaving the Valley. That is six months more than we had in 1985. If you'd been around then to have had that bloody piece of paper shoved into your hands, you'd know how people like me see this. We felt absolutely helpless that day, furiously impotent. Lets learn from history.