I think there may be one major difference: I think GC values CAFC in the Borough, it is also deeply involved as a partner in the community schemes which on the face of it is a highly valuable contribution from the club. That is not to say that the Valley is an essential part of that, but it is of course in the Borough.
just to clarify I was not trying to derail a very important and fundamental discussion into one that debated the rights or wrongs of moving the from the valley
I just wanted to be sure that the reason for the ACV now was not based on info that we all had a right to know
I believe and trust the people who lead the trust and it was paranoia on my part based on what you say above Dan
I think its a fair question. Ultimately until fans are back in the Boardroom in some way at CAFC we will not know enough about any future plans for the club, this must be our long term goal I believe.
I think its a fair question. Ultimately until fans are back in the Boardroom in some way at CAFC we will not know enough about any future plans for the club, this must be our long term goal I believe.
Exactly...... The fact that Clive Efford was still under the impression that we had a 'fan's director' , aligns to the comment once expressed by Joni Mitchell. Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you've got Till it's gone......
I will be bringing the family to the open day this weekend will be good to catch up
Good stuff, look forward to meeting you - although bear in mind that we have to be there from 8.30am to set up which might, after Portsmouth away the day before, be a bit brutal so apologies if I'm not at my most cognisant !!
after working in events pal most set ups were after a hard night boozing I feel your pain I worked at the duke of Wessex polo event last weekend and the nights were hardcore but the weather killed us the next day hydrate and sunscreen , I find that a bandanna works well as you can soak it and tie it on your swede
I will be bringing the family to the open day this weekend will be good to catch up
Good stuff, look forward to meeting you - although bear in mind that we have to be there from 8.30am to set up which might, after Portsmouth away the day before, be a bit brutal so apologies if I'm not at my most cognisant !!
I will be bringing the family to the open day this weekend will be good to catch up
Good stuff, look forward to meeting you - although bear in mind that we have to be there from 8.30am to set up which might, after Portsmouth away the day before, be a bit brutal so apologies if I'm not at my most cognisant !!
after working in events pal most set ups were after a hard night boozing I feel your pain I worked at the duke of Wessex polo event last weekend and the nights were hardcore but the weather killed us the next day hydrate and sunscreen , I find that a bandanna works well as you can soak it and tie it on your swede
Good advice - guarantee I'll only remember what you've said at 1pm on Sunday when I'm suffering from sun stroke !
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.
As with my previous post, I'm taking the time to think this through and asking questions that I think are important to consider before rushing to sign up to it. The ACV is a great idea, and as Prague has said it gives us 6 months to muster some response to a future proposal re the Valley, but it is brand new legislation and I don't pretend to understand what it will bring us in reality, your FAQs notwithstanding.
I make no apologies for presenting a perceived risk or posing a question. Don't read this as nay-saying, and there's really no need to be defensive. I'm on the same side as you, I'm a member of the trust and whilst the demands on my time won't allow me any further commitment I'll support anything that will tangibly help protect the Valley. So I'm encouraged at your gusto, but cautious that people understand ACV is far from a guarantee.
For example, most of the reasons the FAQ give why the Valley would be an ACV would also be true of a new stadium at the peninsular. In other words, I wonder if it would even be protected if an alternative stadium was on the table.
Most significantly of all though, unlike a pub or community centre The Valley is inextricably linked to the presence of the football club. Without Charlton it has no value as an ACV. What is there in the ACV listing to protect that relationship? In other words, if the club was selling the Valley having already secured an alternative stadium, the ACV would have no power whatsoever to stop that happening. The Trust could not bid, because it would be bidding on a white elephant. In this case, the delay would only be the six weeks available to register interest in bidding (although I suppose there is nothing to prevent us registering and subsequently failing to lodge a [realistic] bid).
So whilst I do think there is some value in the ACV and I'm happy to support it, I need to be convinced it will have much impact at all in terms of protecting The Valley and that it won't give the club political ground ("we showed you our intent to maintain a community presence, what more do you want?" etc). There are still questions to be asked, and I do think we need to think through what our next step will be to ensure the club and the ground are permanently related and that change can't occur without consultation.
Also didn't mean to be defensive, I am pretty sure there are far more talented folk in our community who could chair more effectively than I, and that is not some fake modesty, I really believe that.
Some valid comments Rik Perhaps I can answer some of them , but as I will not be the arbitrator, or on the panel to assess this application there may be a 'inexact criteria', after all this will be one of the first applications, for Greenwich council to reflect on. 1. For example, most of the reasons the FAQ give why the Valley would be an ACV would also be true of a new stadium at the peninsular. In other words, I wonder if it would even be protected if an alternative stadium was on the table. I do not think that a 'new stadium' would fullfill the criteria of being a community asset, for at least a few years to prove its community value, not a business /leisure outlet
2.Most significantly of all though, unlike a pub or community centre The Valley is inextricably linked to the presence of the football club. Without Charlton it has no value as an ACV. What is there in the ACV listing to protect that relationship? In other words, if the club was selling the Valley having already secured an alternative stadium, the ACV would have no power whatsoever to stop that happening. The Trust could not bid, because it would be bidding on a white elephant. In this case, the delay would only be the six weeks available to register interest in bidding (although I suppose there is nothing to prevent us registering and subsequently failing to lodge a [realistic] bid). If the club were to go ahead and build a new stadium , without consulting fans( it's customers) some of us like myself would not be going?. Of course other fans might be more attracted, but with the Wet spam Olympic stadium the conflict of having two clubs fairly near with a capacity of well over 100,000 'bums' to fill seems rather daunting. If I was a developer I would want to see how the 'wet spam fill there stadium with decent paying customers', let alone Orient, whose owner might have something to legally say etc..... You say that the trust could not bid? ..... How do you know that? You may well be right, but if the club move and have to pay off the debt of the alleged £15 million loan, certain directors who have security based on a return to the prem, may well want to reconsider there financial exposure to a ground based where?. The building costs, the transport infastructure etc. Portsmouth trust managed to 'buy there club' or at least secure loans........
3. I was born In Charlton, not the Greenwich peninsular?.... if you go a few more miles we may as well claim to set up in Poplar/Whitechapel/Bow etc.....
4.Where is all this money coming from to build a stadium?..... yes the Valley could do with some investment , but a new build? .For me and it is a personnal declaration no thanks. I assume that any new stadium would be a sort of lease arrangement, so the football club would not actually own the ground? . I am sure some financial wizzard could dream up a financial case for ground sharing with wet spam, after all it was a wizz idea last time? eh!... no thanks. But if the majority want to go to a new stadium, then I guess that is where I would get off. But as Barnie has said that is a seperate issue, and the 'traditionalist's' like me would need an awful lot of convincing, and a 10 year free season ticket, and a lift, door to door, and a free meal, a decent beer at half time, a billion transfer budget for 5 years. Bit unrealistic then for me then. This application will unfold and there may well be people who have valid reasons to want to move? At that stage I am happy to debate that on say Charlton live or whatever public forum if anyone wants to, as a private individual, fan.
So whilst I do think there is some value in the ACV and I'm happy to support it, I need to be convinced it will have much impact at all in terms of protecting The Valley and that it won't give the club political ground ("we showed you our intent to maintain a community presence, what more do you want?" etc). There are still questions to be asked, and I do think we need to think through what our next step will be to ensure the club and the ground are permanently related without consultation.
Some valid comments Rik Perhaps I can answer some of them , but as I will not be the arbitrator, or on the panel to assess this application there may be a 'inexact criteria', after all this will be one of the first applications, for Greenwich council to reflect on. 1. For example, most of the reasons the FAQ give why the Valley would be an ACV would also be true of a new stadium at the peninsular. In other words, I wonder if it would even be protected if an alternative stadium was on the table. I do not think that a 'new stadium' would fullfill the criteria of being a community asset, for at least a few years to prove its community value, not a business /leisure outlet
2.Most significantly of all though, unlike a pub or community centre The Valley is inextricably linked to the presence of the football club. Without Charlton it has no value as an ACV. What is there in the ACV listing to protect that relationship? In other words, if the club was selling the Valley having already secured an alternative stadium, the ACV would have no power whatsoever to stop that happening. The Trust could not bid, because it would be bidding on a white elephant. In this case, the delay would only be the six weeks available to register interest in bidding (although I suppose there is nothing to prevent us registering and subsequently failing to lodge a [realistic] bid). If the club were to go ahead and build a new stadium , without consulting fans( it's customers) some of us like myself would not be going?. Of course other fans might be more attracted, but with the Wet spam Olympic stadium the conflict of having two clubs fairly near with a capacity of well over 100,000 'bums' to fill seems rather daunting. If I was a developer I would want to see how the 'wet spam fill there stadium with decent paying customers', let alone Orient, whose owner might have something to legally say etc..... You say that the trust could not bid? ..... How do you know that? You may well be right, but if the club move and have to pay off the debt of the alleged £15 million loan, certain directors who have security based on a return to the prem, may well want to reconsider there financial exposure to a ground based where?. The building costs, the transport infastructure etc. Portsmouth trust managed to 'buy there club' or at least secure loans........
3. I was born In Charlton, not the Greenwich peninsular?.... if you go a few more miles we may as well claim to set up in Poplar/Whitechapel/Bow etc.....
4.Where is all this money coming from to build a stadium?..... yes the Valley could do with some investment , but a new build? .For me and it is a personnal declaration no thanks. I assume that any new stadium would be a sort of lease arrangement, so the football club would not actually own the ground? . I am sure some financial wizzard could dream up a financial case for ground sharing with wet spam, after all it was a wizz idea last time? eh!... no thanks. But if the majority want to go to a new stadium, then I guess that is where I would get off. But as Barnie has said that is a seperate issue, and the 'traditionalist's' like me would need an awful lot of convincing, and a 10 year free season ticket, and a lift, door to door, and a free meal, a decent beer at half time, a billion transfer budget for 5 years. Bit unrealistic then for me then. This application will unfold and there may well be people who have valid reasons to want to move? At that stage I am happy to debate that on say Charlton live or whatever public forum if anyone wants to, as a private individual, fan.
So whilst I do think there is some value in the ACV and I'm happy to support it, I need to be convinced it will have much impact at all in terms of protecting The Valley and that it won't give the club political ground ("we showed you our intent to maintain a community presence, what more do you want?" etc). There are still questions to be asked, and I do think we need to think through what our next step will be to ensure the club and the ground are permanently related without consultation.
I genuinely appreciate the time people are spending addressing my concerns. I'm really not arguing not to apply for an ACV, just that I think it should form part of a long term strategy and in order to appreciate its contribution to the Trust's vision we need to understand what it will achieve and what it won't.
For example the age of a building has nothing to with its community value and the ACV defining criteria don't take age into account at all, other than it should already have value. My underlying point is that the community value of the Valley is intrinsically linked to the presence of Charlton Athletic.
We can't rely on our perception of the unfeasibility and impracticality of moving to a new site (whether prior to disposing of The Valley or not). If the club were to decide to move, they will already have taken into account the potential of the loss of existing support and offset it against the benefits. And if the business case stands up, then the business should rightly consider it (although this whole discussion evidences that the business case shouldn't be the only factor).
The point about the Trust not putting in a bid is slightly different to that you've inferred. What I'm saying is that if the decision to move has already been taken, the Trust - or anyone else - buying The Valley would actually contribute to making it happen, assuming the funds from the disposal of the Valley are part of the business case. And of course what would be the point of the Trust buying The Valley if Charlton Athletic will no longer be there?
Barnie, personally I think you're doing a great job and this is exactly the sort of creative thinking we need. I'm desperately trying to be constructive rather than critical, hence my suggestion to look at the alternatives (or are they next steps?).
Precisely for some of the things you point out, as I said yesterday I'm yet to be fully convinced on the worth of these things due to the complex scenarios / situations that would surround it.
However, that is not a negative on the action or intention, its an uncertainty on the strength of the effectiveness.
Whether people wish to back this or remain indifferent is entirely a matter of personal choice, but I can't see a single logical reason to oppose it.
It shows to me personally, that along with the FPP study stuff, the Trust are starting to find their niche and are involving themselves in the right things that fit into what (i think) should be their remit, rather than attempting to saturate everything.
Not forgetting nearly 600 members, 15k hits in June, network over 3000. Analysis of club finances. 5000 distribution of TNT. One of the biggest surveys of its kind. collaboration and ongoing talks with CAFC board, And other stuff I can't mention yet.
We are young and learning still.. But I want all fans to own the Trust not a clique in a backroom of a pub. That is the only way we can be strong enough to succeed.
I sincerely believe what we are doing is for the most part the best way to do that in the environment we find ourselves in.
Let me try to answer your questions as best I can. It’s good to have a few cautious voices out there as there may be others who haven’t posted who feel the same.
“I don't pretend to understand what it will bring us in reality” – exactly what we've said it will – forewarning of a plan to sell and six months to organise ourselves, no more, no less.
“cautious that people understand ACV is far from a guarantee” completely agree, we tried very hard to communicate that in the FAQs and in this thread so I hope that’s worked
“most of the reasons the FAQ give why the Valley would be an ACV would also be true of a new stadium at the peninsular. In other words, I wonder if it would even be protected if an alternative stadium was on the table” – there is no alternative on the table and nor will there be in the couple of weeks between now and, should the Charlton supporter base be in favour, submitting the paperwork. We have no idea what community functionality a new, fictional, stadium would incorporate so I’m not sure whether it would also be considered a community asset. But if we deal with the facts as they are, the Valley certainly is a community asset and there is no other of comparable value to the community anywhere else in South London. I’m not sure I understand the last sentence of your point – are you suggesting that if a new stadium was mooted the Valley might have it’s ACV status revoked ? I’ve read the legislation and I’m not sure that’s possible, certainly not without the agreement of the community (i.e. us). “Most significantly of all though, unlike a pub or community centre The Valley is inextricably linked to the presence of the football club. Without Charlton it has no value as an ACV. What is there in the ACV listing to protect that relationship?” - Clearly the Valley is inextricably linked to the football club, but ACV doesn’t recognise the presence of a football club, it recognise the value of an asset to its community. The Valley isn’t an asset because 22 men kick a ball around there every other Saturday, it’s an asset because it forms a vital part of the lives of thousands of people, because it delivers many vital services to our community and because it’s a focal point for the borough. The FAQ includes a section “Why is the Valley a Community Asset” – this lists all the reasons we believe the Valley is an asset and whilst you are correct that the ground is linked to the club, this in of itself isn't the reason it’s a community asset.
“if the club was selling the Valley having already secured an alternative stadium, the ACV would have no power whatsoever to stop that happening. The Trust could not bid, because it would be bidding on a white elephant. In this case, the delay would only be the six weeks available to register interest in bidding (although I suppose there is nothing to prevent us registering and subsequently failing to lodge a [realistic] bid). “ – I think it’s likely that the club would need to sell the Valley to fund a move to a new stadium (although there are of course scenarios where that isn't the case) and in this case the benefit of ACV would be the six months notice period before any sale could be completed. Of course we’d much prefer it that there was legislation that said we couldn't leave our stadium without fan approval but it doesn't exist and we need to use the tools available to us.
“I need to be convinced it will have much impact at all in terms of protecting The Valley and that it won't give the club political ground ("we showed you our intent to maintain a community presence, what more do you want?" etc).” – It simply does what it says. In the event that the club plans a sale of the Valley they would have to inform us and we would have six months to put together a bid. The right to bid might be a big benefit, it might be worthless but for me the main outcome is a decent amount of forewarning of a plan to sell – something we don’t have at all. Does that address all possible scenarios ? Not at all. Is it better than what we have now ? Definitely !
"There are still questions to be asked, and I do think we need to think through what our next step will be to ensure the club and the ground are permanently related and that change can't occur without consultation". – Completely agree ! ACV is the first step, not the complete answer but if we aren't supported on this step then it’s difficult to justify those which come after.
I’m not sure if I've responded to your points well, I’m not sure if you will now sign the petition, but I thank you for raising the points that you have as the whole point of this first step was to gauge the feelings of Addicks and discussion like this helps us do so.
Almost 400 now...Another comment from the e-petition: "The Valley is part of the fabric of Charlton Athletic, not just a pitch and four stands. If history and tradition mattered not, fans would likely vote for a brand new stadium rather than an ageing beauty. I'd like to see a fans poll for that?"
Many thanks to Charlton Life for the "announcement" status. Just over 100 sign ups have been generated by this thread or c. 25%
Let me try to answer your questions as best I can. It’s good to have a few cautious voices out there as there may be others who haven’t posted who feel the same.
“I don't pretend to understand what it will bring us in reality” – exactly what we've said it will – forewarning of a plan to sell and six months to organise ourselves, no more, no less.
Not quite - it will give notice at the point the club have decided to sell, give us six weeks to indicate an intention to organise a bid, then six months to put a bid in that the club don't have to accept.
“cautious that people understand ACV is far from a guarantee” completely agree, we tried very hard to communicate that in the FAQs and in this thread so I hope that’s worked
“most of the reasons the FAQ give why the Valley would be an ACV would also be true of a new stadium at the peninsular. In other words, I wonder if it would even be protected if an alternative stadium was on the table” – there is no alternative on the table and nor will there be in the couple of weeks between now and, should the Charlton supporter base be in favour, submitting the paperwork. We have no idea what community functionality a new, fictional, stadium would incorporate so I’m not sure whether it would also be considered a community asset. But if we deal with the facts as they are, the Valley certainly is a community asset and there is no other of comparable value to the community anywhere else in South London. I’m not sure I understand the last sentence of your point – are you suggesting that if a new stadium was mooted the Valley might have it’s ACV status revoked ? I’ve read the legislation and I’m not sure that’s possible, certainly not without the agreement of the community (i.e. us).
Well firstly surely the whole point of the ACV is to make it more difficult for the club just to up and leave without consultation? If there was nowhere to move to it wouldn't be needed would it, so yes we should be anticipating the potential for a move.
Secondly, revocation would be a moot point - the ACV can't stop the club moving, it just means it takes longer to sell, and I guess in theory more difficult to effect a change of use, which might be its most significant effect.
“Most significantly of all though, unlike a pub or community centre The Valley is inextricably linked to the presence of the football club. Without Charlton it has no value as an ACV. What is there in the ACV listing to protect that relationship?” - Clearly the Valley is inextricably linked to the football club, but ACV doesn’t recognise the presence of a football club, it recognise the value of an asset to its community. The Valley isn’t an asset because 22 men kick a ball around there every other Saturday, it’s an asset because it forms a vital part of the lives of thousands of people, because it delivers many vital services to our community and because it’s a focal point for the borough. The FAQ includes a section “Why is the Valley a Community Asset” – this lists all the reasons we believe the Valley is an asset and whilst you are correct that the ground is linked to the club, this in of itself isn't the reason it’s a community asset.
I think you've contradicted yourself here a little, or perhaps made my point. The ACV doesn't recognise the presence of a football club, but I'm sure you can see The Valley would cease to be an asset of community value if Charlton moved to play at the Peninsular, say. Or in other words, without Charlton what would be left to operate from The Valley?
“if the club was selling the Valley having already secured an alternative stadium, the ACV would have no power whatsoever to stop that happening. The Trust could not bid, because it would be bidding on a white elephant. In this case, the delay would only be the six weeks available to register interest in bidding (although I suppose there is nothing to prevent us registering and subsequently failing to lodge a [realistic] bid). “ – I think it’s likely that the club would need to sell the Valley to fund a move to a new stadium (although there are of course scenarios where that isn't the case) and in this case the benefit of ACV would be the six months notice period before any sale could be completed. Of course we’d much prefer it that there was legislation that said we couldn't leave our stadium without fan approval but it doesn't exist and we need to use the tools available to us.
Yes I agree - but I can see scenarios where a move wasn't dependent upon the immediate sale of the Valley, and if we were to move into a stadium that formed part of the Borough Plan, such as at the Peninsular, I can see the Council taking a different view to change of use at The Valley than previously.
“I need to be convinced it will have much impact at all in terms of protecting The Valley and that it won't give the club political ground ("we showed you our intent to maintain a community presence, what more do you want?" etc).” – It simply does what it says. In the event that the club plans a sale of the Valley they would have to inform us and we would have six months to put together a bid. The right to bid might be a big benefit, it might be worthless but for me the main outcome is a decent amount of forewarning of a plan to sell – something we don’t have at all. Does that address all possible scenarios ? Not at all. Is it better than what we have now ? Definitely !
There's no forewarning of a plan to sell. We get notified as and when the club has already decided to sell, and probably has its buyer already lined up. ACV simply introduces a six month delay - and if we already have somewhere to go...well I've done that point to death.
"There are still questions to be asked, and I do think we need to think through what our next step will be to ensure the club and the ground are permanently related and that change can't occur without consultation". – Completely agree ! ACV is the first step, not the complete answer but if we aren't supported on this step then it’s difficult to justify those which come after.
And on this I totally agree. I've not yet signed the petition, I will do, I just feel it would be remiss of me to see some shortfalls and not to make sure we all understand them.
I’m not sure if I've responded to your points well, I’m not sure if you will now sign the petition, but I thank you for raising the points that you have as the whole point of this first step was to gauge the feelings of Addicks and discussion like this helps us do so.
I do appreciate the time people have spent to consider these points.
Many thanks for your responses – I don’t want this to feel like I’m picking on you, I’m not – I just want to answer any questions our supporters may have to the best of my ability.
There are a couple of points I just want to highlight.
“ (in response to me saying ACV will give us “forewarning of a plan to sell and six months to organise ourselves, no more, no less”) Not quite - it will give notice at the point the club have decided to sell, give us six weeks to indicate an intention to organise a bid, then six months to put a bid in that the club don't have to accept.” Section 95 (2) of the Localism Act (from where the relevant powers are derived) states “Condition A is that that particular person has notified the local authority in writing of that person’s wish to enter into a relevant disposal of the land”. A wish isn’t a decision.
The club may “wish” to sell, but the fact is they can’t without allowing us our six month window. That, surely, is forewarning ? Something we do not have now.
“the whole point of the ACV is to make it more difficult for the club just to up and leave without consultation” The “whole point” of ACV is not “to make it more difficult for the club just to up and leave without consultation” it’s to make sure the owner of the Valley doesn’t sell the ground without consultation. If there was some hypothetical way that the Club could leave without selling the Valley then this wouldn’t kick in – I don’t want anyone to get the wrong idea about the purpose of ACV, it’s linked to the Valley not the Club.
“The Valley would cease to be an asset of community value if Charlton moved to play at the Peninsular” – again I have absolutely no idea if the Valley would no longer be an asset to the community if we played at the Peninsular, probably not, but we can only deal with the situation and the facts as they stand. They club do play at the Valley and the Valley is a community asset. It would be a strange idea that one should not recognise a community assets value simply because one day in the future it may no longer be that asset ! Surely, hypothetically every pub, library and sports centre which is recognised as an ACV could be replaced by a better one at some point in the future but that makes them none the less valuable in the reality of here and now ?
“Yes I agree - but I can see scenarios where a move wasn't dependent upon the immediate sale of the Valley” – agreed, I don’t think West Hams move is dependant on the sale of Upton Park (I might be wrong) and in such a circumstance ACV wouldn’t be much use but as I said we can only work with the tools we have. I’d imagine most ground moves are only viable should the existing ground be sold in which case ACV would be a useful tool.
“There's no forewarning of a plan to sell. We get notified as and when the club has already decided to sell” again that’s not quite what the legislation says. The club have to inform the Council of a “wish” to sell. “Wishes” are different from “decisions”.
“I just feel it would be remiss of me to see some shortfalls and not to make sure we all understand them” – agreed, although I do have to say – and I feel quite strongly about this – I think we’ve been really clear about what ACV means and more importantly what it doesn’t mean, particularly in the FAQs (http://www.castrust.org/acv-faqs/)
Comments
I just wanted to be sure that the reason for the ACV now was not based on info that we all had a right to know
I believe and trust the people who lead the trust and it was paranoia on my part based on what you say above Dan
The fact that Clive Efford was still under the impression that we had a 'fan's director' , aligns to the comment once expressed by Joni Mitchell.
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone......
And aint that a fact.........
I understand there will be gazebos for each stall
I make no apologies for presenting a perceived risk or posing a question. Don't read this as nay-saying, and there's really no need to be defensive. I'm on the same side as you, I'm a member of the trust and whilst the demands on my time won't allow me any further commitment I'll support anything that will tangibly help protect the Valley. So I'm encouraged at your gusto, but cautious that people understand ACV is far from a guarantee.
For example, most of the reasons the FAQ give why the Valley would be an ACV would also be true of a new stadium at the peninsular. In other words, I wonder if it would even be protected if an alternative stadium was on the table.
Most significantly of all though, unlike a pub or community centre The Valley is inextricably linked to the presence of the football club. Without Charlton it has no value as an ACV. What is there in the ACV listing to protect that relationship? In other words, if the club was selling the Valley having already secured an alternative stadium, the ACV would have no power whatsoever to stop that happening. The Trust could not bid, because it would be bidding on a white elephant. In this case, the delay would only be the six weeks available to register interest in bidding (although I suppose there is nothing to prevent us registering and subsequently failing to lodge a [realistic] bid).
So whilst I do think there is some value in the ACV and I'm happy to support it, I need to be convinced it will have much impact at all in terms of protecting The Valley and that it won't give the club political ground ("we showed you our intent to maintain a community presence, what more do you want?" etc). There are still questions to be asked, and I do think we need to think through what our next step will be to ensure the club and the ground are permanently related and that change can't occur without consultation.
Also didn't mean to be defensive, I am pretty sure there are far more talented folk in our community who could chair more effectively than I, and that is not some fake modesty, I really believe that.
Perhaps I can answer some of them , but as I will not be the arbitrator, or on the panel to assess this application there may be a 'inexact criteria', after all this will be one of the first applications, for Greenwich council to reflect on.
1. For example, most of the reasons the FAQ give why the Valley would be an ACV would also be true of a new stadium at the peninsular. In other words, I wonder if it would even be protected if an alternative stadium was on the table.
I do not think that a 'new stadium' would fullfill the criteria of being a community asset, for at least a few years to prove its community value, not a business /leisure outlet
2.Most significantly of all though, unlike a pub or community centre The Valley is inextricably linked to the presence of the football club. Without Charlton it has no value as an ACV. What is there in the ACV listing to protect that relationship? In other words, if the club was selling the Valley having already secured an alternative stadium, the ACV would have no power whatsoever to stop that happening. The Trust could not bid, because it would be bidding on a white elephant. In this case, the delay would only be the six weeks available to register interest in bidding (although I suppose there is nothing to prevent us registering and subsequently failing to lodge a [realistic] bid).
If the club were to go ahead and build a new stadium , without consulting fans( it's customers) some of us like myself would not be going?. Of course other fans might be more attracted, but with the Wet spam Olympic stadium the conflict of having two clubs fairly near with a capacity of well over 100,000 'bums' to fill seems rather daunting. If I was a developer I would want to see how the 'wet spam fill there stadium with decent paying customers', let alone Orient, whose owner might have something to legally say etc.....
You say that the trust could not bid? ..... How do you know that? You may well be right, but if the club move and have to pay off the debt of the alleged £15 million loan, certain directors who have security based on a return to the prem, may well want to reconsider there financial exposure to a ground based where?. The building costs, the transport infastructure etc.
Portsmouth trust managed to 'buy there club' or at least secure loans........
3. I was born In Charlton, not the Greenwich peninsular?.... if you go a few more miles we may as well claim to set up in Poplar/Whitechapel/Bow etc.....
4.Where is all this money coming from to build a stadium?..... yes the Valley could do with some investment , but a new build? .For me and it is a personnal declaration no thanks. I assume that any new stadium would be a sort of lease arrangement, so the football club would not actually own the ground? . I am sure some financial wizzard could dream up a financial case for ground sharing with wet spam, after all it was a wizz idea last time? eh!... no thanks. But if the majority want to go to a new stadium, then I guess that is where I would get off.
But as Barnie has said that is a seperate issue, and the 'traditionalist's' like me would need an awful lot of convincing, and a 10 year free season ticket, and a lift, door to door, and a free meal, a decent beer at half time, a billion transfer budget for 5 years. Bit unrealistic then for me then.
This application will unfold and there may well be people who have valid reasons to want to move?
At that stage I am happy to debate that on say Charlton live or whatever public forum if anyone wants to, as a private individual, fan.
So whilst I do think there is some value in the ACV and I'm happy to support it, I need to be convinced it will have much impact at all in terms of protecting The Valley and that it won't give the club political ground ("we showed you our intent to maintain a community presence, what more do you want?" etc). There are still questions to be asked, and I do think we need to think through what our next step will be to ensure the club and the ground are permanently related without consultation.
For example the age of a building has nothing to with its community value and the ACV defining criteria don't take age into account at all, other than it should already have value. My underlying point is that the community value of the Valley is intrinsically linked to the presence of Charlton Athletic.
We can't rely on our perception of the unfeasibility and impracticality of moving to a new site (whether prior to disposing of The Valley or not). If the club were to decide to move, they will already have taken into account the potential of the loss of existing support and offset it against the benefits. And if the business case stands up, then the business should rightly consider it (although this whole discussion evidences that the business case shouldn't be the only factor).
The point about the Trust not putting in a bid is slightly different to that you've inferred. What I'm saying is that if the decision to move has already been taken, the Trust - or anyone else - buying The Valley would actually contribute to making it happen, assuming the funds from the disposal of the Valley are part of the business case. And of course what would be the point of the Trust buying The Valley if Charlton Athletic will no longer be there?
Barnie, personally I think you're doing a great job and this is exactly the sort of creative thinking we need. I'm desperately trying to be constructive rather than critical, hence my suggestion to look at the alternatives (or are they next steps?).
Precisely for some of the things you point out, as I said yesterday I'm yet to be fully convinced on the worth of these things due to the complex scenarios / situations that would surround it.
However, that is not a negative on the action or intention, its an uncertainty on the strength of the effectiveness.
Whether people wish to back this or remain indifferent is entirely a matter of personal choice, but I can't see a single logical reason to oppose it.
It shows to me personally, that along with the FPP study stuff, the Trust are starting to find their niche and are involving themselves in the right things that fit into what (i think) should be their remit, rather than attempting to saturate everything.
Well done to those concerned
We are young and learning still.. But I want all fans to own the Trust not a clique in a backroom of a pub. That is the only way we can be strong enough to succeed.
I sincerely believe what we are doing is for the most part the best way to do that in the environment we find ourselves in.
Let me try to answer your questions as best I can. It’s good to have a few cautious voices out there as there may be others who haven’t posted who feel the same.
“I don't pretend to understand what it will bring us in reality” – exactly what we've said it will – forewarning of a plan to sell and six months to organise ourselves, no more, no less.
“cautious that people understand ACV is far from a guarantee” completely agree, we tried very hard to communicate that in the FAQs and in this thread so I hope that’s worked
“most of the reasons the FAQ give why the Valley would be an ACV would also be true of a new stadium at the peninsular. In other words, I wonder if it would even be protected if an alternative stadium was on the table” – there is no alternative on the table and nor will there be in the couple of weeks between now and, should the Charlton supporter base be in favour, submitting the paperwork. We have no idea what community functionality a new, fictional, stadium would incorporate so I’m not sure whether it would also be considered a community asset. But if we deal with the facts as they are, the Valley certainly is a community asset and there is no other of comparable value to the community anywhere else in South London. I’m not sure I understand the last sentence of your point – are you suggesting that if a new stadium was mooted the Valley might have it’s ACV status revoked ? I’ve read the legislation and I’m not sure that’s possible, certainly not without the agreement of the community (i.e. us).
“Most significantly of all though, unlike a pub or community centre The Valley is inextricably linked to the presence of the football club. Without Charlton it has no value as an ACV. What is there in the ACV listing to protect that relationship?” - Clearly the Valley is inextricably linked to the football club, but ACV doesn’t recognise the presence of a football club, it recognise the value of an asset to its community. The Valley isn’t an asset because 22 men kick a ball around there every other Saturday, it’s an asset because it forms a vital part of the lives of thousands of people, because it delivers many vital services to our community and because it’s a focal point for the borough. The FAQ includes a section “Why is the Valley a Community Asset” – this lists all the reasons we believe the Valley is an asset and whilst you are correct that the ground is linked to the club, this in of itself isn't the reason it’s a community asset.
“if the club was selling the Valley having already secured an alternative stadium, the ACV would have no power whatsoever to stop that happening. The Trust could not bid, because it would be bidding on a white elephant. In this case, the delay would only be the six weeks available to register interest in bidding (although I suppose there is nothing to prevent us registering and subsequently failing to lodge a [realistic] bid). “ – I think it’s likely that the club would need to sell the Valley to fund a move to a new stadium (although there are of course scenarios where that isn't the case) and in this case the benefit of ACV would be the six months notice period before any sale could be completed. Of course we’d much prefer it that there was legislation that said we couldn't leave our stadium without fan approval but it doesn't exist and we need to use the tools available to us.
“I need to be convinced it will have much impact at all in terms of protecting The Valley and that it won't give the club political ground ("we showed you our intent to maintain a community presence, what more do you want?" etc).” – It simply does what it says. In the event that the club plans a sale of the Valley they would have to inform us and we would have six months to put together a bid. The right to bid might be a big benefit, it might be worthless but for me the main outcome is a decent amount of forewarning of a plan to sell – something we don’t have at all. Does that address all possible scenarios ? Not at all. Is it better than what we have now ? Definitely !
"There are still questions to be asked, and I do think we need to think through what our next step will be to ensure the club and the ground are permanently related and that change can't occur without consultation". – Completely agree ! ACV is the first step, not the complete answer but if we aren't supported on this step then it’s difficult to justify those which come after.
I’m not sure if I've responded to your points well, I’m not sure if you will now sign the petition, but I thank you for raising the points that you have as the whole point of this first step was to gauge the feelings of Addicks and discussion like this helps us do so.
"The Valley is part of the fabric of Charlton Athletic, not just a pitch and four stands. If history and tradition mattered not, fans would likely vote for a brand new stadium rather than an ageing beauty. I'd like to see a fans poll for that?"
Many thanks to Charlton Life for the "announcement" status. Just over 100 sign ups have been generated by this thread or c. 25%
And we did survive one move away. Understand what I'm saying here, but Charlton Athletic is more than The Valley, as precious as that is.
Secondly, revocation would be a moot point - the ACV can't stop the club moving, it just means it takes longer to sell, and I guess in theory more difficult to effect a change of use, which might be its most significant effect. I think you've contradicted yourself here a little, or perhaps made my point. The ACV doesn't recognise the presence of a football club, but I'm sure you can see The Valley would cease to be an asset of community value if Charlton moved to play at the Peninsular, say. Or in other words, without Charlton what would be left to operate from The Valley? Yes I agree - but I can see scenarios where a move wasn't dependent upon the immediate sale of the Valley, and if we were to move into a stadium that formed part of the Borough Plan, such as at the Peninsular, I can see the Council taking a different view to change of use at The Valley than previously. There's no forewarning of a plan to sell. We get notified as and when the club has already decided to sell, and probably has its buyer already lined up. ACV simply introduces a six month delay - and if we already have somewhere to go...well I've done that point to death. And on this I totally agree. I've not yet signed the petition, I will do, I just feel it would be remiss of me to see some shortfalls and not to make sure we all understand them.
I do appreciate the time people have spent to consider these points.
however i disagree on one point
The Valley is Charlton Athletic its what we became from when we first arrived at its threshold
its what bought us back to what we are now
The Valley epitomises the club the fans and the name of Charlton Athletic
This is the Valley it is what holds CAFC together and when you take it away we falter and shrink when you bring us back to it we grow and flourish
Many thanks for your responses – I don’t want this to feel like I’m picking on you, I’m not – I just want to answer any questions our supporters may have to the best of my ability.
There are a couple of points I just want to highlight.
“ (in response to me saying ACV will give us “forewarning of a plan to sell and six months to organise ourselves, no more, no less”) Not quite - it will give notice at the point the club have decided to sell, give us six weeks to indicate an intention to organise a bid, then six months to put a bid in that the club don't have to accept.”
Section 95 (2) of the Localism Act (from where the relevant powers are derived) states “Condition A is that that particular person has notified the local authority in writing of that person’s wish to enter into a relevant disposal of the land”. A wish isn’t a decision.
The club may “wish” to sell, but the fact is they can’t without allowing us our six month window. That, surely, is forewarning ? Something we do not have now.
“the whole point of the ACV is to make it more difficult for the club just to up and leave without consultation”
The “whole point” of ACV is not “to make it more difficult for the club just to up and leave without consultation” it’s to make sure the owner of the Valley doesn’t sell the ground without consultation. If there was some hypothetical way that the Club could leave without selling the Valley then this wouldn’t kick in – I don’t want anyone to get the wrong idea about the purpose of ACV, it’s linked to the Valley not the Club.
“The Valley would cease to be an asset of community value if Charlton moved to play at the Peninsular” – again I have absolutely no idea if the Valley would no longer be an asset to the community if we played at the Peninsular, probably not, but we can only deal with the situation and the facts as they stand. They club do play at the Valley and the Valley is a community asset. It would be a strange idea that one should not recognise a community assets value simply because one day in the future it may no longer be that asset ! Surely, hypothetically every pub, library and sports centre which is recognised as an ACV could be replaced by a better one at some point in the future but that makes them none the less valuable in the reality of here and now ?
“Yes I agree - but I can see scenarios where a move wasn't dependent upon the immediate sale of the Valley” – agreed, I don’t think West Hams move is dependant on the sale of Upton Park (I might be wrong) and in such a circumstance ACV wouldn’t be much use but as I said we can only work with the tools we have. I’d imagine most ground moves are only viable should the existing ground be sold in which case ACV would be a useful tool.
“There's no forewarning of a plan to sell. We get notified as and when the club has already decided to sell” again that’s not quite what the legislation says. The club have to inform the Council of a “wish” to sell. “Wishes” are different from “decisions”.
“I just feel it would be remiss of me to see some shortfalls and not to make sure we all understand them” – agreed, although I do have to say – and I feel quite strongly about this – I think we’ve been really clear about what ACV means and more importantly what it doesn’t mean, particularly in the FAQs (http://www.castrust.org/acv-faqs/)