ACV if supported is greater than the sum of its parts, it is official recognition of the football ground in the community. If the fans club and LA buy into it for the right reason it can be a platform.
Football is changing it can not, and never really could be run like an ordinary business, but less so outside the premier league (the money that is being thrown about up there can only end badly.). And when it run in an enlightened way there is huge potential for the small number of clubs who realise that
Rikfold great questions and thought provoking responses and 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
Emotionally I couldn't agree with you more, and I hope we never leave the Valley - hence the questions I'm asking re the ACV. For the record I've supported Charlton since the late 70s, been a season ticket holder since the Selhurst Park days and Valley Gold member since its inception.
But.
From a community asset viewpoint, is it really a community asset if the club is no longer there?
I'm labouring this point, but if the business case to move to a new stadium allowed for a delay in the disposal of The Valley, any bid from the Trust would be for a stadium that wouldn't ever be used. We may decide to go ahead in the hope that we can persuade the owners to return, but the owners don't have to accept our bid anyway.
bottom line is the law is about a building not an entity or company, take a pub for example, it allows for a community group to buy it then put it back into action, it is not Charlton Athletic that is the community asset technically, it is the ground itself
you could also theoretically form your own version of a football club, like for example AFC Wimbledon, which goes back to the earlier question how long can a football club survive (other than the franchise) when it is taken elsewhere against the wishes of its fans? I would argue MK are no longer the same club, nor do they have the same fans.
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/)
Ok, some quick responses but I'm not here for an argument.
Wish to sell. The reality is that the Council gets notified when the club intends to either put the Valley up for open sale, or intends to accept a bid, there's no obligation to notify sooner and any thought to the contrary is, excuse the pun, wishful thinking. Before doing so, they have to advise the council who in turn would notify the concerned community group(s), who would then decide if they wanted to pursue a bid. The club doesn't have to accept a bid, so provided the Trust registered within the 6 weeks the worst case scenario for the club would be a six month delay.
I repeat, if the club are able to move without selling the Valley first, we'd have a 25,000 seater stadium that would not be used. It would cease to have any tangible community value, and without a change of use probably very little value at all - why would the Trust risk a bid for it?
The FAQs don't address the questions I'm raising SE9, otherwise I wouldn't need to raise them. I've done a bit more reading, and the more I read the more I'm persuaded that an ACV will do little on its own to protect the Valley from sale if the club really wants to move. That's not to say there aren't benefits in doing so, and I suspect the Council might struggle to justify a change of use - although without the club, we'd just have a decaying stadium, and if a move aligned to the Borough Plan I doubt even an ACV would stop a change of use application succeeding.
I've signed the petition, by the way, if it helps. :-)
you could also theoretically form your own version of a football club, like for example AFC Wimbledon, which goes back to the earlier question how long can a football club survive (other than the franchise) when it is taken elsewhere against the wishes of its fans? I would argue MK are no longer the same club, nor do they have the same fans.
It's not comparable though Raz. We're not talking about a franchise that takes Charlton the other side of the M25 - we're talking about a foreseeable prospect of an alternative purpose-built football stadium at the Peninsular, just a couple of miles from the Valley, outside a residential area and with the same infrastructure available as the O2 arena. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but I think comparisons with MK Dons are little more than a straw man argument.
That message to supporters is a stark reminder. I don't want to be on the Valley pitch like that time again, don't think I can climb over the barrier now.
you could also theoretically form your own version of a football club, like for example AFC Wimbledon, which goes back to the earlier question how long can a football club survive (other than the franchise) when it is taken elsewhere against the wishes of its fans? I would argue MK are no longer the same club, nor do they have the same fans.
It's not comparable though Raz. We're not talking about a franchise that takes Charlton the other side of the M25 - we're talking about a foreseeable prospect of an alternative purpose-built football stadium at the Peninsular, just a couple of miles from the Valley, outside a residential area and with the same infrastructure available as the O2 arena. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but I think comparisons with MK Dons are little more than a straw man argument.
I was wondering that too, it's not as if we have 16000 fans who all live within a stone's throw of The Valley, who would be massively inconvenienced by a move elsewhere in the borough. Indeed only a minority of Charlton supporters even live within the borough of Greenwich.
The community work that Charlton does would still be done if we were playing by the Peninsula (or Woolwich say).
you could also theoretically form your own version of a football club, like for example AFC Wimbledon, which goes back to the earlier question how long can a football club survive (other than the franchise) when it is taken elsewhere against the wishes of its fans? I would argue MK are no longer the same club, nor do they have the same fans.
It's not comparable though Raz. We're not talking about a franchise that takes Charlton the other side of the M25 - we're talking about a foreseeable prospect of an alternative purpose-built football stadium at the Peninsular, just a couple of miles from the Valley, outside a residential area and with the same infrastructure available as the O2 arena. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but I think comparisons with MK Dons are little more than a straw man argument.
Probably only me but The Valley is Charlton as far as I'm concerned.
The Peninsular holds no interest whatsoever even though geographically it isn't far from The Valley.
In other words, whilst I don't doubt the logic of what you say at all, anything that MIGHT keep us at The Valley has to be worth it as far as I am concerned.
Rik, without knowing the exact terms etc of a hypothetical move it is difficult to answer, I am citing actual examples rather than mythical ones.. specifically you asked about whether it is the ground or the club that matters, i.e. if a club moved away from a ground would the ground still be the community asset, the answer is yes because the legislation applies to the buildings.
The practical reality would of course be affected by where that move was, however as I understand it that doesn't affect the legislation, so in theory you could buy the ground and set up a new franchise.
Additionally we would have an opportunity to bid, that doesn't mean that we necessarily would, the point is we would have a choice at some stage assuming it came up for sale.
This is a genuine question and not a wind up but it strikes me that there has been a lot of talk on here about "the community". Which community is my first question, us i.e CL members, Charlton Fans as a whole, or the residents of the LB of Greenwich especially those poor sods living in Harvey Gardens, Floyd Road, Charlton Church Lane etc ?
I can't help thinking that a lot of people in the borough and especially in the streets/areas mentioned above really don't think that having a football stadium on their doorstep has any value at all if they are not CAFC supporters.
I suppose my real question is have the real "community" i.e those people most affected either by proximity, interest or lack thereof in CAFC and where a football team play every other weekend during the winter been canvassed or even asked to comment?
As a lifelong Charlton supporter I would never ever want to see us move even two miles away but it's not my life, buses, parking, litter, noise etc that's affected. Like most on here I live a good distance away and am totally unaffected by the situation other than when I turn up to support my team.
I guess that would be up to their legal representatives in this case the Council to determine.
I don't agree however that Charlton fans don't make up significant part of the community of the Borough of Greenwich, or the area of Charlton. Arguably even if they don't live in LBG they still can be considered part of that.
This is a genuine question and not a wind up but it strikes me that there has been a lot of talk on here about "the community". Which community is my first question, us i.e CL members, Charlton Fans as a whole, or the residents of the LB of Greenwich especially those poor sods living in Harvey Gardens, Floyd Road, Charlton Church Lane etc ?
I can't help thinking that a lot of people in the borough and especially in the streets/areas mentioned above really don't think that having a football stadium on their doorstep has any value at all if they are not CAFC supporters.
I suppose my real question is have the real "community" i.e those people most affected either by proximity, interest or lack thereof in CAFC and where a football team play every other weekend during the winter been canvassed or even asked to comment?
As a lifelong Charlton supporter I would never ever want to see us move even two miles away but it's not my life, buses, parking, litter, noise etc that's affected. Like most on here I live a good distance away and am totally unaffected by the situation other than when I turn up to support my team.
I think community can be extended not to just Greenwich, or even surrounding areas, but in an Ecclesiastical sense: 'a group of men or women leading a common life according to a rule'. as well as other social groups, as well as a group of men or women leading a common life according to a rule.. according to definitions. Well that is the sociological explanation, or form of it, but I imagine that for this purpose it means its customers/supporters, so quite a wide range, not just the people living in and around Floyd Road. A football club is not like a supermarket or another business, because it works on so many social levels, to a wide a diverse membership?. Of course it must have regard to the immediate community leaders, which is why I emailed the local MPs yesterday, not only Greenwich but Bexley as well. Charlton do a lot of work in the community in schools,clubs, even young offender institutions in Rochester as an example, so a simple exact area say 3 miles around the Valley would not be a fair comparison. The fact that stadium has been around for a long time, like a railway station, or a leisure centre means that the surrounding community value this assett, and come into the area and bring in financial benefit as well. I also do not live in the immediate area, although I did when I was born, and the support base has always been diverse?
Razil I agree with you and as said above the post wasn't meant as a dig. I just wonder how many local people really see the club/stadium as an asset rather than a liability?
I am worried that this may have a significant impact on what CAST is trying to do and whether it would be worth trying to involve them at this stage?
How you would do that however needs someone cleverer than me to work out.
Razil I agree with you and as said above the post wasn't meant as a dig. I just wonder how many local people really see the club/stadium as an asset rather than a liability?
I am worried that this may have a significant impact on what CAST is trying to do and whether it would be worth trying to involve them at this stage?
How you would do that however needs someone cleverer than me to work out.
you could also theoretically form your own version of a football club, like for example AFC Wimbledon, which goes back to the earlier question how long can a football club survive (other than the franchise) when it is taken elsewhere against the wishes of its fans? I would argue MK are no longer the same club, nor do they have the same fans.
It's not comparable though Raz. We're not talking about a franchise that takes Charlton the other side of the M25 - we're talking about a foreseeable prospect of an alternative purpose-built football stadium at the Peninsular, just a couple of miles from the Valley, outside a residential area and with the same infrastructure available as the O2 arena. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but I think comparisons with MK Dons are little more than a straw man argument.
We don't know what we might be talking about. In a scenario where overstretched directors were desperate to recover any value they could from loans in their name, they could move the team anywhere. Millwall, for example.
I have no idea how old you are or what you remember about the Valley Party. The return was opposed by a vociferous group of local residents, led by a bloke who hailed from Wolverhampton. Some Labour councillors at the time made a great deal of the fact that I especially and Airman Brown didn't live in the borough. The irony of their own Northern or Scottish accents appeared lost on them. It was not lost on the electorate, since 14,838 of them voted for the Valley Party. I don't think much has changed since then, except that those councillors and probably the bloke from Wolverhampton, have long since moved away.
you could also theoretically form your own version of a football club, like for example AFC Wimbledon, which goes back to the earlier question how long can a football club survive (other than the franchise) when it is taken elsewhere against the wishes of its fans? I would argue MK are no longer the same club, nor do they have the same fans.
It's not comparable though Raz. We're not talking about a franchise that takes Charlton the other side of the M25 - we're talking about a foreseeable prospect of an alternative purpose-built football stadium at the Peninsular, just a couple of miles from the Valley, outside a residential area and with the same infrastructure available as the O2 arena. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but I think comparisons with MK Dons are little more than a straw man argument.
We don't know what we might be talking about. In a scenario where overstretched directors were desperate to recover any value they could from loans in their name, they could move the team anywhere. Millwall, for example.
Quite - but how would an ACV stop that? I can see that it might delay a change of use, but what Council is going to realistically stop a housing development these days on land that would have no genuine community use should the club move out?
EDIT: Ah, I can see that it might prevent an opportunistic flash sale, but I think the change of use thing kind of does that already doesn't it?
It would defer any sale and allow time to organise. Fryer and co only got away with the move to Selhurst because our supporters' organisation was weak and the deal was sprung on us. Given six months we'd have stopped it or reversed it.
Yes, they could move regardless in the meantime but that would be extra cost.
It would defer any sale and allow time to organise. Fryer and co only got away with the move to Selhurst because our supporters' organisation was weak and the deal was sprung on us. Given six months we'd have stopped it or reversed it.
Yes, they could move regardless in the meantime but that would be extra cost.
Rik, without knowing the exact terms etc of a hypothetical move it is difficult to answer, I am citing actual examples rather than mythical ones.. specifically you asked about whether it is the ground or the club that matters, i.e. if a club moved away from a ground would the ground still be the community asset, the answer is yes because the legislation applies to the buildings.
The practical reality would of course be affected by where that move was, however as I understand it that doesn't affect the legislation, so in theory you could buy the ground and set up a new franchise.
Additionally we would have an opportunity to bid, that doesn't mean that we necessarily would, the point is we would have a choice at some stage assuming it came up for sale.
Barn, of course I understand the legislative position, but respectfully I think you're missing my point. Put simply - if Charlton no longer played at the Valley, to what extent will the community still benefit from it? Yes of course it would still be listed as an ACV, but without Charlton playing there in reality it would deliver precisely nothing, and I think it would be hard to defend a challenge to it being retained on the list - what community value persists? - which would subsequently make it vulnerable to a change of use application.
And again - what use would an opportunity to bid be if the club had already decided to move? It would only be beneficial if the club had entered a groundshare in the hope that retention of the Valley would offer for a future return but in a non-groundshare situation, at best we'd be financially supporting the club's move in the remote hope they'd not like it and come back again. I doubt we'd find the benefactor prepared to invest in that scenario.
I'm heartened that I can't find the harm in applying for an ACV, and Rick makes a good point about opportunism - I'm just pointing out that in terms of achieving the aim of securing the Valley we should recognise its shortfalls.
tl;dr: The value to supporters [and the community] is in the marriage of Charlton Athletic and The Valley. The ACV protects The Valley only, not the marriage - there's nothing to stop the club walking away and remarrying elsewhere, and that might be the right thing.
As an aside, as romantically as we want to define the community as being Charlton supporters wherever they are in the world, this is a local authority list and I'd be amazed if they'd consider anything other than value to RBG residents.
It would defer any sale and allow time to organise. Fryer and co only got away with the move to Selhurst because our supporters' organisation was weak and the deal was sprung on us. Given six months we'd have stopped it or reversed it.
Yes, they could move regardless in the meantime but that would be extra cost.
All that is true, but as the Club at the time didn't own The Valley, I'm not sure an ACV at the time would have made any difference?
I still don't understand why the hypothetical possibility that the Valley may one day be superseded by another stadium is a reason not to recognise its value to the community today.
It would defer any sale and allow time to organise. Fryer and co only got away with the move to Selhurst because our supporters' organisation was weak and the deal was sprung on us. Given six months we'd have stopped it or reversed it.
Yes, they could move regardless in the meantime but that would be extra cost.
All that is true, but as the Club at the time didn't own The Valley, I'm not sure an ACV at the time would have made any difference?
Accepted, but the club (or its owners) do now. I think ACV is a weak safeguard for our purposes but it is better than nothing.
It would defer any sale and allow time to organise. Fryer and co only got away with the move to Selhurst because our supporters' organisation was weak and the deal was sprung on us. Given six months we'd have stopped it or reversed it.
Yes, they could move regardless in the meantime but that would be extra cost.
This, a thousand times.
Come on, Rich P......
:-) Come on Prague, it's entirely dependent on the scenario and we both know that. I know we've achieved magnificent things before, and I'm sure we will again - and I'm quite sure they'd involve the Council again. Sadly, in some scenarios the six months may mean absolutely nothing - in truth, it only matters if a move is dependent upon a timely sale of the Valley.
That's why I'm urging continuance of efforts to find a way to secure the marriage of Charlton and The Valley - don't get distracted by how easily I get foolishly dragged into debates ("No I don't" "Yes you do"...etc). :-) The urgency of this will inevitably be proportionate to the extent you believe an ACV will protect The Valley. Personally, I think it's heavily constrained, and caveated by the scenario to boot.
But look, hey. I've already signed the petition, do I have to agree with every positive spin as well? :-)
I still don't understand why the hypothetical possibility that the Valley may one day be superseded by another stadium is a reason not to recognise its value to the community today.
It would defer any sale and allow time to organise. Fryer and co only got away with the move to Selhurst because our supporters' organisation was weak and the deal was sprung on us. Given six months we'd have stopped it or reversed it.
Yes, they could move regardless in the meantime but that would be extra cost.
All that is true, but as the Club at the time didn't own The Valley, I'm not sure an ACV at the time would have made any difference?
Accepted, but the club (or its owners) do now. I think ACV is a weak safeguard for our purposes but it is better than nothing.
Comments
Football is changing it can not, and never really could be run like an ordinary business, but less so outside the premier league (the money that is being thrown about up there can only end badly.). And when it run in an enlightened way there is huge potential for the small number of clubs who realise that
But.
From a community asset viewpoint, is it really a community asset if the club is no longer there?
I'm labouring this point, but if the business case to move to a new stadium allowed for a delay in the disposal of The Valley, any bid from the Trust would be for a stadium that wouldn't ever be used. We may decide to go ahead in the hope that we can persuade the owners to return, but the owners don't have to accept our bid anyway.
Wish to sell. The reality is that the Council gets notified when the club intends to either put the Valley up for open sale, or intends to accept a bid, there's no obligation to notify sooner and any thought to the contrary is, excuse the pun, wishful thinking. Before doing so, they have to advise the council who in turn would notify the concerned community group(s), who would then decide if they wanted to pursue a bid. The club doesn't have to accept a bid, so provided the Trust registered within the 6 weeks the worst case scenario for the club would be a six month delay.
I repeat, if the club are able to move without selling the Valley first, we'd have a 25,000 seater stadium that would not be used. It would cease to have any tangible community value, and without a change of use probably very little value at all - why would the Trust risk a bid for it?
The FAQs don't address the questions I'm raising SE9, otherwise I wouldn't need to raise them. I've done a bit more reading, and the more I read the more I'm persuaded that an ACV will do little on its own to protect the Valley from sale if the club really wants to move. That's not to say there aren't benefits in doing so, and I suspect the Council might struggle to justify a change of use - although without the club, we'd just have a decaying stadium, and if a move aligned to the Borough Plan I doubt even an ACV would stop a change of use application succeeding.
I've signed the petition, by the way, if it helps. :-)
That message to supporters is a stark reminder. I don't want to be on the Valley pitch like that time again, don't think I can climb over the barrier now.
The community work that Charlton does would still be done if we were playing by the Peninsula (or Woolwich say).
The Peninsular holds no interest whatsoever even though geographically it isn't far from The Valley.
In other words, whilst I don't doubt the logic of what you say at all, anything that MIGHT keep us at The Valley has to be worth it as far as I am concerned.
The practical reality would of course be affected by where that move was, however as I understand it that doesn't affect the legislation, so in theory you could buy the ground and set up a new franchise.
Additionally we would have an opportunity to bid, that doesn't mean that we necessarily would, the point is we would have a choice at some stage assuming it came up for sale.
I can't help thinking that a lot of people in the borough and especially in the streets/areas mentioned above really don't think that having a football stadium on their doorstep has any value at all if they are not CAFC supporters.
I suppose my real question is have the real "community" i.e those people most affected either by proximity, interest or lack thereof in CAFC and where a football team play every other weekend during the winter been canvassed or even asked to comment?
As a lifelong Charlton supporter I would never ever want to see us move even two miles away but it's not my life, buses, parking, litter, noise etc that's affected. Like most on here I live a good distance away and am totally unaffected by the situation other than when I turn up to support my team.
I don't agree however that Charlton fans don't make up significant part of the community of the Borough of Greenwich, or the area of Charlton. Arguably even if they don't live in LBG they still can be considered part of that.
as well as other social groups, as well as a group of men or women leading a common life according to a rule.. according to definitions. Well that is the sociological explanation, or form of it, but I imagine that for this purpose it means its customers/supporters, so quite a wide range, not just the people living in and around Floyd Road.
A football club is not like a supermarket or another business, because it works on so many social levels, to a wide a diverse membership?. Of course it must have regard to the immediate community leaders, which is why I emailed the local MPs yesterday, not only Greenwich but Bexley as well. Charlton do a lot of work in the community in schools,clubs, even young offender institutions in Rochester as an example, so a simple exact area say 3 miles around the Valley would not be a fair comparison. The fact that stadium has been around for a long time, like a railway station, or a leisure centre means that the surrounding community value this assett, and come into the area and bring in financial benefit as well. I also do not live in the immediate area, although I did when I was born, and the support base has always been diverse?
I am worried that this may have a significant impact on what CAST is trying to do and whether it would be worth trying to involve them at this stage?
How you would do that however needs someone cleverer than me to work out.
I have no idea how old you are or what you remember about the Valley Party. The return was opposed by a vociferous group of local residents, led by a bloke who hailed from Wolverhampton. Some Labour councillors at the time made a great deal of the fact that I especially and Airman Brown didn't live in the borough. The irony of their own Northern or Scottish accents appeared lost on them. It was not lost on the electorate, since 14,838 of them voted for the Valley Party. I don't think much has changed since then, except that those councillors and probably the bloke from Wolverhampton, have long since moved away.
EDIT: Ah, I can see that it might prevent an opportunistic flash sale, but I think the change of use thing kind of does that already doesn't it?
Yes, they could move regardless in the meantime but that would be extra cost.
This, a thousand times.
Come on, Rich P......
And again - what use would an opportunity to bid be if the club had already decided to move? It would only be beneficial if the club had entered a groundshare in the hope that retention of the Valley would offer for a future return but in a non-groundshare situation, at best we'd be financially supporting the club's move in the remote hope they'd not like it and come back again. I doubt we'd find the benefactor prepared to invest in that scenario.
I'm heartened that I can't find the harm in applying for an ACV, and Rick makes a good point about opportunism - I'm just pointing out that in terms of achieving the aim of securing the Valley we should recognise its shortfalls.
tl;dr: The value to supporters [and the community] is in the marriage of Charlton Athletic and The Valley. The ACV protects The Valley only, not the marriage - there's nothing to stop the club walking away and remarrying elsewhere, and that might be the right thing.
As an aside, as romantically as we want to define the community as being Charlton supporters wherever they are in the world, this is a local authority list and I'd be amazed if they'd consider anything other than value to RBG residents.
That's why I'm urging continuance of efforts to find a way to secure the marriage of Charlton and The Valley - don't get distracted by how easily I get foolishly dragged into debates ("No I don't" "Yes you do"...etc). :-) The urgency of this will inevitably be proportionate to the extent you believe an ACV will protect The Valley. Personally, I think it's heavily constrained, and caveated by the scenario to boot.
But look, hey. I've already signed the petition, do I have to agree with every positive spin as well? :-)