I know where you are coming from. Also no one is arguing this is strong, but we are arguing it is better than nothing. 2 points though.
For this to stand up simply stopping the function of a CA wouldnt stop it being one, first because it could be employed as a cynical ploy, but mainly because the legislation is concerned with physical entities therefore potential as well as actual should be considered. So the Valley wouldnt cease to be a stadium in the community the moment CAFC left, indeed were it still an asset of CAFC it would retain the potential to be used. A pub does not cease to be a pub if it is closed.
Second, to my knowledge there is no method of repealing/revoking the status. But that is something we should be concerned with I agree, I am not a legal expert on such matters as challenging existing designations of such things. Perhaps the council could revoke the designation or move it, but would they risk that politically without consent of their electorate?
Were a club to be in a situation whereupon it had a popular alternative nearby Charlton fans would vote with their feets/bums anyway. But hopefully what this does at the very least is recognise the CA, were there to be a sale involved which I suspect there would be nowadays, it would indeed have a warning effect.
On the point regarding the piece of paper scenario, one would hope that with the influence of ACV that scenario would not occur in the first place.
We do accept there are certain scenarios where ACV would not help give fans a say. Perhaps we can focus on how we would deal with them as well rather than just decrying acv and suggest if possible how the localism act can be beefed up if possible or indeed something entirely different?
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.
Prague, in fairness I'm probably older than you and yes of course I remember the VP and hold in the highest regard all those who played their part. I am not trying to put obstacles in the way of anything that would or could avoid a similar scenario and I will support the efforts of all who are thinking about and working toward avoiding a repeat of those dark days.
My concern is merely that I think all obstacles need to be considered and unlike you I do believe that much has changed both within the Club and in Society as a whole.
I never underestimate the power of passionate people and push come to shove I would hope that the same passion can be generated again. This being said I also never underestimate the disingenuousness of politicians (evidenced by your own troubles with GBC) and am merely asking whether the point has been considered and whether any action can be taken to avoid a future argument?
I think we all hope those councillors have moved on but if they have merely been replaced with a bunch of a similar mindset ( I suspect irony is no more appreciated today than it was then) is it not be sensible to ask the question now and go forward forearmed?
Raz, a pub is a place that sells alcoholic beverages to the public. If it's not selling, it's not a pub mate. This remains my contention - without Charlton, it's not really a football stadium and it sure as eggs isn't delivering a benefit to the community.
Of course the pub building retains the potential to be a pub, but anyway it's not a fantastic comparison because a football stadium the size of the Valley is unlikely to be sold to anyone for continuance as a football stadium - with the unlikely but remotely possible exceptions of Millwall, Crystal Palace or Gillingham. Or MK Dons of course. ;-)
The listing only lasts 5 years, although it can of course be re-applied for. It's ambiguous in what I've read, but disposal may also release it from the list provided the community has had the opportunity to bid. Need to read more on this, but I now also understand that there's an 8 week time limit for the owner to challenge an ACV listing - although this is at the Council's discretion provided they write to the owner with an alternative time frame.
Your last sentence is precisely my point. I'm not decrying ACV, but recognising its limitations in the hope we'll plan for something else to address them.
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.
Prague, in fairness I'm probably older than you and yes of course I remember the VP and hold in the highest regard all those who played their part. I am not trying to put obstacles in the way of anything that would or could avoid a similar scenario and I will support the efforts of all who are thinking about and working toward avoiding a repeat of those dark days.
My concern is merely that I think all obstacles need to be considered and unlike you I do believe that much has changed both within the Club and in Society as a whole.
I never underestimate the power of passionate people and push come to shove I would hope that the same passion can be generated again. This being said I also never underestimate the disingenuousness of politicians (evidenced by your own troubles with GBC) and am merely asking whether the point has been considered and whether any action can be taken to avoid a future argument?
I think we all hope those councillors have moved on but if they have merely been replaced with a bunch of a similar mindset ( I suspect irony is no more appreciated today than it was then) is it not be sensible to ask the question now and go forward forearmed?
I understand your point. However Greenwich Borough is far more than the few streets around the Valley. It's Eltham for example, where my Mum lives and I see far more kids in Eltham Park wearing Charlton kit now than I ever did before 1992. I am sure there are many residents around the Valley who might wish it away. But it has always been there, save for seven misguided years. I don't see why the immediate residents should be especially consulted, since they are far outnumbered by the other residents of Greenwich Borough who are Charlton fans.
But in the end ACV is about ensuring that WE are in some way consulted. At the moment there is nothing to stop GC and club owners springing a surprise on us as they did in 1985 and 1989.
At the moment there is nothing to stop GC and club owners springing a surprise on us as they did in 1985 and 1989.
-----
I wish people would stop referring back to 1985, being thrust a bit of paper etc. as I just don't see the relevance.
This is not 1985 anymore. Football has moved on, society has moved on, supporter organisation, the ability to reform clubs, general communication outlets etc have all moved on.
Unless in a financial dire straights situation where we cannot afford to host games at our own ground, any movement away from the Valley would only ever be done with the backing of supporters.
Why ? Because if not the opposition would be so fierce there would be no benefit of moving a club starting with such a small and tight support base if no one was to follow it. That would happen whether there was an AVC or not.
I equally Can't see how it can have any impact in stopping the club falling into unscrupulous hands.
On the one hand there is a rumour that the owners want £35M plus repayment of their loans (£15M) to sell the club and at the other extreme the owners are skint and about to commence a fire sale destroying all value of the club. I don't think either will happen any time soon! The value of CAFC is in a return to the Premier League
AFKA - in one sense I see what you are saying and a 1985 scenario is not prevented by ACV... but the point is that ACV is symbollic of where we are as a club and that, as well as making good commercial sense, a proposed move / sale of the Valley should involve consultation especially given that we now know that 50% of the fan base have already had to leave the Valley once.
I don't know the full costs of running the club at The Valley but £1M a year is depreciation, NOT cash, so the cheapest option has to be stay put and grow the club. It is only when (not if) we get promoted or when a billionaire comes in that a move becomes viable as the club needs bigger premises.
So we refer back to 1985 because we have lived the nightmare which paradoxically was the catalyst to grow the club in the 1990s. Others refer to other clubs in transition like Portsmouth or facing the abyss (Coventry) but to me its simpler to refer to our own history to get the message across... and that's why this is one of the fastest growing trusts in the country.
Some don't particularly believe in supporter activism / collectivism but we think it is a way forwards to get more information and to help find solutions.
At the moment there is nothing to stop GC and club owners springing a surprise on us as they did in 1985 and 1989.
-----
I wish people would stop referring back to 1985, being thrust a bit of paper etc. as I just don't see the relevance.
This is not 1985 anymore. Football has moved on, society has moved on, supporter organisation, the ability to reform clubs, general communication outlets etc have all moved on.
Unless in a financial dire straights situation where we cannot afford to host games at our own ground, any movement away from the Valley would only ever be done with the backing of supporters.
Why ? Because if not the opposition would be so fierce there would be no benefit of moving a club starting with such a small and tight support base if no one was to follow it. That would happen whether there was an AVC or not.
I equally Can't see how it can have any impact in stopping the club falling into unscrupulous hands.
it gives us six months to organise the "fierce opposition" you speak of.
As for this big sea change in football you speak of, give me one example of supporters stopping a move to a new stadium. Or even of a major consultation exercise with supporters before such a move.
Clubs have only been "reformed" after the major damage was already done.
There's no bigger champion of Charlton Life than me, but don't let's kid ourselves that TJ or any new owner is going to "sound you out" before upping sticks to the Peninsula. The arrogance of English club owners has only got worse since 1985, because of the money sloshing around.
But the 6mth thing is irrelevant if in your example TJ decided to up sticks and move the club to the peninsula. Opposing a move is separate to an AVC on the Valley, as you would have the opportunity to bid for something that would hold no football value, and would be instantly rejected by the owner.
Even if there was an AVC on The Valley it would hold zero value in stopping TJ pushing ahead with his intended move, and if the supporters were collectively opposed to it (not a given), they would have to find a different way to stop him.
______
As for this big sea change in football you speak of, give me one example of supporters stopping a move to a new stadium.
---------
Firstly, I didn't say sea change, but given that the only communication we had at our disposal then was a weekly local rag, then it was a completely different world.
You could equally flip that and say since our Valley exile episode though has probably been approx 30 club moves away from traditional stadia (a third of the football league). How many of those were fiercely opposed by their supporters ? How many have been for the detrimental development of their club ? I'd guess the percentage is small.
I have said this from the start, we have a choice do nothing and moan on message boards or do something positive to little by little increase our influence over the clubs future. Keep the faith folks.
I have said this from the start, we have a choice do nothing and moan on message boards or do something positive to little by little increase our influence over the clubs future. Keep the faith folks.
This kind of post worries me, Barnie. You're dismissing those pointing out the limitations as moaners, decryers, etc.
It's got nothing to do with losing faith, it's got to do with cold hard reality that the ACV will buy us six months in certain scenarios to do something, but little more.
Both AFKA and myself have both said we see no reason not to sign, but we're simply pointing out that we need to be very clear that an AVC is a limited tool in the defence of 'Charlton at The Valley'.
Yes of course it's better than nothing, but if you want Trust members who simply say 'Yes Barnie' (and I know you don't) then you won't find the sort of people we might need for a 'Valley Party II'. Let it spur you (EDIT: us all) on to find the solution to keep Charlton and the Valley together, mate, it's what we all want.
At the moment there is nothing to stop GC and club owners springing a surprise on us as they did in 1985 and 1989.
-----
I wish people would stop referring back to 1985, being thrust a bit of paper etc. as I just don't see the relevance.
This is not 1985 anymore. Football has moved on, society has moved on, supporter organisation, the ability to reform clubs, general communication outlets etc have all moved on.
Unless in a financial dire straights situation where we cannot afford to host games at our own ground, any movement away from the Valley would only ever be done with the backing of supporters.
Why ? Because if not the opposition would be so fierce there would be no benefit of moving a club starting with such a small and tight support base if no one was to follow it. That would happen whether there was an AVC or not.
I equally Can't see how it can have any impact in stopping the club falling into unscrupulous hands.
it gives us six months to organise the "fierce opposition" you speak of.
As for this big sea change in football you speak of, give me one example of supporters stopping a move to a new stadium. Or even of a major consultation exercise with supporters before such a move.
Clubs have only been "reformed" after the major damage was already done.
There's no bigger champion of Charlton Life than me, but don't let's kid ourselves that TJ or any new owner is going to "sound you out" before upping sticks to the Peninsula. The arrogance of English club owners has only got worse since 1985, because of the money sloshing around.
Since 1985, there have been a lot of new builds, the majority of which were recognised by supporters as being beneficial to the club, even if change was emotionally difficult (such as the move from Highbury): The Emirates, the Etihad, the Cardiff City Stadium, Stadium of Light, Pride Park, the Riverside, St Mary's, the King Power, the Reebok, the Britannia, the KC Stadium, the Majedski Stadium - and more. Supporters may or may not have been able to stop these, but I wonder how many would describe their ground move as 'major damage'?. Brighton for sure, although they're now playing in a fantastic stadium and on the up, thanks largely to their fans. Possibly Coventry. Struggling to think of another example.
I can't really comment on the extent to which fans were consulted, but equally I can't recall strong organised opposition to the move - I suspect generally not because they were caught unaware, but because the case for moving was presented well by the respective boards.
To me, the good news of the ACV is that it hampers an opportunist sale, and it probably hampers the club heading recklessly into a sale and lease back arrangement too. We do get six months notice of a sale too, which is hardly a downside. I'm sure the answer to the question posed by the OP is 'yes, we should pursue an ACV, but we need to understand it only protects The Valley and we shouldn't presume it necessarily protects the 'Charlton at The Valley' marriage we all desire.
I am beginning to lose sight of exactly what it is you are trying to achieve with your argument, so I will just comment on the other grounds you mention. Many of them replaced grounds which were shitholes. Others increased the financial clout of an already big FAPL club that was outgrowing its capacity - that is how Arsenal and Man city fans were sold the moves. You seem to forget that in this period the Valley was also completely redeveloped to FAPL standards. With the exception of one poster on here, nobody argues that the Valley is like Burnden Park, Filbert street, the Baseball etc. But many people do comment that their replacements are "soulless". The Valley has a soul, because so many of us are attached to it. It reminds us where we came from, on so many different levels. We have the bricks commemorating our loved ones who took us there in the first place.
The merits of an actual move are a whole different topic as AFKA noted earlier. We can have that discussion here, which will be ignored by those who would make the decision. Or we can have it in the context of an ACV, which gives us six months to assess the real cost of a move, and campaign to either stop it or modify it. And to give us time to at least stipulate what should be done with the commemorative bricks.
What do YOU think the Trust should be doing, and would that thing be something more effective at this stage in the Trust's development than applying for an ACV?
At the moment there is nothing to stop GC and club owners springing a surprise on us as they did in 1985 and 1989.
-----
I wish people would stop referring back to 1985, being thrust a bit of paper etc. as I just don't see the relevance.
This is not 1985 anymore. Football has moved on, society has moved on, supporter organisation, the ability to reform clubs, general communication outlets etc have all moved on.
Unless in a financial dire straights situation where we cannot afford to host games at our own ground, any movement away from the Valley would only ever be done with the backing of supporters.
Why ? Because if not the opposition would be so fierce there would be no benefit of moving a club starting with such a small and tight support base if no one was to follow it. That would happen whether there was an AVC or not.
I equally Can't see how it can have any impact in stopping the club falling into unscrupulous hands.
Thing is if the board tommorow decide to move to the peninsular, with all the costs that involves, it would take several years to build and deliver that stadium. People are saying that it only buys you 6 months, well that is 6 months more than what you have at present, and the scenario where a chairman or board just decide to move, because of a financial plan/investment opportunity to me as a fan how does that make it an improvement. The Greenwich peninsular is often cited. I cannot see the council providing the infastructure, and moving to a barren site. Blackwell tunnel cannot cope as it is?. And does this current owner have the financial clout to build a modern stadia, ? what capacity?. We cannot even fill the Valley at present,?. Visions of a new valley somewhere, being used 20 times a year? . I would like to see the financial details of that one to show a sustainable investment?. Wet spam are going to struggle with there move to the Olypic, playing mid week games against Swansea, and they are in the prem? As has been stated this does NOT stop the club, or future owners moving it is a consultation process?. It may well be added to to include the Ground and training venues?...... as well as other benefits that could give the fans a right to comment. What is so wrong with that?. So AVC is not a perfect solution, but is a step forward signalling that fans should have a say? ..... or do we just put up with the caprices of business people, who may fancy a change?
I was also speaking generally about Trust stuff, you should see the discussions we have among the Board I am sometimes surpised we get anything done.. and I don't mind that at all here or there, but at some stage you also do need to say we've discussed that and maybe be more to do, meantime move back out to the barricades and flog Trust News in the pouring rain before Millwall. How many that like to argue this stuff actually do the other stuff. How many on here could spare half hour before a match if they really wanted to?
In summary we know its not perfect, but let's get out there and back this positively, at the very least its a rallying call for fans, and as AFKA says a good 'Trustworthy' campaign (forgive the pun). I also hope it will spur more interest in the Trust generally and persuade people to join.
Bottom line the Trust thing is only what we make it, we need the 'decryers' so we don't walk into things blind, I was one of those in some sense before we made it policy. But we also need that intellect and energy to help us positively.
I don't think falling out over a point is worthwhile
from the way I read it you have the I think its better to do this than nothing
and then the
even doing the AVC is not really going to solve an issue if the club decide to move the football team else where as all you would have is a stadium and no team in it
It depends whether part 2 is a reason not to positively support this.
I value all of Riks contribution believe me, and even some of Barts (even though he's a self confessed grumpster)
So in short I completely agree with the limitations and the need to find better ways to do this. I believe one of those is to gradually increase our influence, who knows where that might lead, that is why I say keep the faith not meaning just do as I say, but rather that there are many ways to skin a cat, but it may be a long and slow process. We should grab this opportunity as one increment in that process.
What do YOU think the Trust should be doing, and would that thing be something more effective at this stage in the Trust's development than applying for an ACV?
come on Prague, for christ sake
I have not said anything negative about the action (I congratulated on it). No one has said anything negative about it. So why am i being made to feel like I have simply by saying that as new legislation I question the effectiveness an AVC offers in the scenarios we may potentially encounter?
That's not an opposing view to the action. Yet any form of comment gets hit with a barrage back as if it is a challenge. 91 of the 168 posts have been provided by just five Trust people.
I'm happy that the Trust are doing it, and i don't think they need to be doing anything else.
Ok gents so we agree acv should be done but vary a little on how effective it may be..
Clive Efford called earlier this year for this legislation to be beefed up to include whenever any ground was sold, perhaps we should ask him where he's got with that..
Also this article interests me July is supposed to be hmgovs deadline for football reform submissions
I apologise if I made you feel that way AFKA. I read your post which basically told me to stop banging on about a piece of paper, at 11.30 after a lot of wine, and it got me down. I realise now that you have been more supportive than I gave you credit for. Sorry.
The Trust though - and I am not on the executive of it - has to be always doing something because it needs to build its membership to a point where it has to be taken half seriously, and to give those who joined, reasons to stay with it. And these guys are working their nuts off.
I am beginning to lose sight of exactly what it is you are trying to achieve with your argument, so I will just comment on the other grounds you mention. Many of them replaced grounds which were shitholes. Others increased the financial clout of an already big FAPL club that was outgrowing its capacity - that is how Arsenal and Man city fans were sold the moves. You seem to forget that in this period the Valley was also completely redeveloped to FAPL standards. With the exception of one poster on here, nobody argues that the Valley is like Burnden Park, Filbert street, the Baseball etc. But many people do comment that their replacements are "soulless". The Valley has a soul, because so many of us are attached to it. It reminds us where we came from, on so many different levels. We have the bricks commemorating our loved ones who took us there in the first place.
The merits of an actual move are a whole different topic as AFKA noted earlier. We can have that discussion here, which will be ignored by those who would make the decision. Or we can have it in the context of an ACV, which gives us six months to assess the real cost of a move, and campaign to either stop it or modify it. And to give us time to at least stipulate what should be done with the commemorative bricks.
Ok, look - we both share the same level of attachment to The Valley and we equally want Charlton to remain there. For ever, if possible. However, this doesn't mean that I should just accept that an ACV is anything more than it is, or stay quiet because people may disagree with me.
I've outlined several times why I'm questioning whether the ACV actually protects our common aim of securing Charlton Athletic at The Valley to the extent that seems to be widely accepted. I think it's important that we understand its limitations and desist in presenting it as some kind of panacea to protect supporters. It should form part of a wider strategy, and whilst Barnie has encouragingly indicated this is indeed the case we continue to vary on our views of its effectiveness in certain scenarios.
To answer your opener, in my last post to you, I was responding to your request for "one example of supporters stopping a move to a new stadium." It's an unqualified query - one needs to assume that there was a desire to prevent the move in the first place. For this, and for the ACV, the specific scenario is absolutely the salient factor.
AFKA and I have both said - repeatedly - that we support the ACV, and whilst I can't speak for AFKA I have indeed signed the petition to act on that support. I recognise my point has been laboured, but people will insist on continuing to post things that I believe paints an overly-optimistic picture of the effectiveness of an ACV.
It won't, in itself, prevent the club from moving to a new stadium. It may, in certain circumstances, buy us time to take action. I do think, however, it would strengthen our arm politically if we could get the club to publicly support the ACV.
For the avoidance of doubt, and for the last time now, I agree applying for an ACV is the right course of action - just I don't think we should over-estimate its effectiveness in place of continuing to investigate other courses that would strengthen it.
I respect your view Rik, but in some circumstances it could stop or slow down a move.
I also disagree that CAS Trust and I as the Chair, or our website are overplaying the value of this, we simply aren't.
It is what it is, and part of that is symbolic. It is young legislation and is hopefully an early incarnation of something that will get stronger.
I welcome your support, and debate, and look forward to more input from you and others who think as I do that we need to do an awful lot more. This is one of the lower rungs of our ladder, as is maybe reaching 500 plus members.
I hope more fans will support this, and understand it the way I do as a significant step.
Rik - I would love for you to find an example, just one, of where we have presented ACV as "a panacea to protect supporters". It clearly isn't and that is spelt out in our FAQs.
SE9, Ok. I don't expect you to agree but I think presenting the ACV as a means to stopping the 'Message to Our Supporters' scenario is misleading. The Trust site also states "It is understood this will ensure Charlton fans are consulted if the club were ever to be relocated and or the Valley sold"
I'd love to be wrong, but my understanding is that it will only affect the last part. There's no and/or. There's not even an or. If the club are intent on a move and not dependent on an immediate sale of The Valley, it will be entirely ineffective.
I accept 'panacea' might be overstating it, but you keep referring me to the site and the FAQs and I think they overstate the case a bit. My concern is that supporters will think 'job done', although I'm encouraged that you and Barnie clearly don't.
What I forgot to follow up earlier was Rick's comment about the fixed charges. Given that there is a charge against The Valley, could the bank(s) in effect force Charlton to remain at The Valley until the charge was released/fulfilled?
SE9, Ok. I don't expect you to agree but I think presenting the ACV as a means to stopping the 'Message to Our Supporters' scenario is misleading. The Trust site also states "It is understood this will ensure Charlton fans are consulted if the club were ever to be relocated and or the Valley sold"
I'd love to be wrong, but my understanding is that it will only affect the last part. There's no and/or. There's not even an or. If the club are intent on a move and not dependent on an immediate sale of The Valley, it will be entirely ineffective.
I accept 'panacea' might be overstating it, but you keep referring me to the site and the FAQs and I think they overstate the case a bit. My concern is that supporters will think 'job done', although I'm encouraged that you and Barnie clearly don't.
What I forgot to follow up earlier was Rick's comment about the fixed charges. Given that there is a charge against The Valley, could the bank(s) in effect force Charlton to remain at The Valley until the charge was released/fulfilled?
I don't think the banks could force Charlton to play at the Valley, the banks are obviously only interested in their money, not where the team play.
I honestly don't think there's a way of conclusively ensuring that Charlton absolutely have to stay at the Valley no matter what. I'm not even sure I think that's a good idea. I'm open to the fact that one day in the future someone might come up with a plan and we as a supporter base think "actually, that's a good idea, that's what's best for this club" and reluctantly we'd agree. What I think is important, however, is that that consultation takes place. Yes, ACV doesn't work in all scenarios, but it gives us more than we have right now.
Comments
I know where you are coming from. Also no one is arguing this is strong, but we are arguing it is better than nothing. 2 points though.
For this to stand up simply stopping the function of a CA wouldnt stop it being one, first because it could be employed as a cynical ploy, but mainly because the legislation is concerned with physical entities therefore potential as well as actual should be considered. So the Valley wouldnt cease to be a stadium in the community the moment CAFC left, indeed were it still an asset of CAFC it would retain the potential to be used. A pub does not cease to be a pub if it is closed.
Second, to my knowledge there is no method of repealing/revoking the status. But that is something we should be concerned with I agree, I am not a legal expert on such matters as challenging existing designations of such things. Perhaps the council could revoke the designation or move it, but would they risk that politically without consent of their electorate?
Were a club to be in a situation whereupon it had a popular alternative nearby Charlton fans would vote with their feets/bums anyway. But hopefully what this does at the very least is recognise the CA, were there to be a sale involved which I suspect there would be nowadays, it would indeed have a warning effect.
On the point regarding the piece of paper scenario, one would hope that with the influence of ACV that scenario would not occur in the first place.
We do accept there are certain scenarios where ACV would not help give fans a say. Perhaps we can focus on how we would deal with them as well rather than just decrying acv and suggest if possible how the localism act can be beefed up if possible or indeed something entirely different?
My concern is merely that I think all obstacles need to be considered and unlike you I do believe that much has changed both within the Club and in Society as a whole.
I never underestimate the power of passionate people and push come to shove I would hope that the same passion can be generated again. This being said I also never underestimate the disingenuousness of politicians (evidenced by your own troubles with GBC) and am merely asking whether the point has been considered and whether any action can be taken to avoid a future argument?
I think we all hope those councillors have moved on but if they have merely been replaced with a bunch of a similar mindset ( I suspect irony is no more appreciated today than it was then) is it not be sensible to ask the question now and go forward forearmed?
Of course the pub building retains the potential to be a pub, but anyway it's not a fantastic comparison because a football stadium the size of the Valley is unlikely to be sold to anyone for continuance as a football stadium - with the unlikely but remotely possible exceptions of Millwall, Crystal Palace or Gillingham. Or MK Dons of course. ;-)
The listing only lasts 5 years, although it can of course be re-applied for. It's ambiguous in what I've read, but disposal may also release it from the list provided the community has had the opportunity to bid. Need to read more on this, but I now also understand that there's an 8 week time limit for the owner to challenge an ACV listing - although this is at the Council's discretion provided they write to the owner with an alternative time frame.
Your last sentence is precisely my point. I'm not decrying ACV, but recognising its limitations in the hope we'll plan for something else to address them.
But in the end ACV is about ensuring that WE are in some way consulted. At the moment there is nothing to stop GC and club owners springing a surprise on us as they did in 1985 and 1989.
-----
I wish people would stop referring back to 1985, being thrust a bit of paper etc. as I just don't see the relevance.
This is not 1985 anymore. Football has moved on, society has moved on, supporter organisation, the ability to reform clubs, general communication outlets etc have all moved on.
Unless in a financial dire straights situation where we cannot afford to host games at our own ground, any movement away from the Valley would only ever be done with the backing of supporters.
Why ? Because if not the opposition would be so fierce there would be no benefit of moving a club starting with such a small and tight support base if no one was to follow it. That would happen whether there was an AVC or not.
I equally Can't see how it can have any impact in stopping the club falling into unscrupulous hands.
AFKA - in one sense I see what you are saying and a 1985 scenario is not prevented by ACV... but the point is that ACV is symbollic of where we are as a club and that, as well as making good commercial sense, a proposed move / sale of the Valley should involve consultation especially given that we now know that 50% of the fan base have already had to leave the Valley once.
I don't know the full costs of running the club at The Valley but £1M a year is depreciation, NOT cash, so the cheapest option has to be stay put and grow the club. It is only when (not if) we get promoted or when a billionaire comes in that a move becomes viable as the club needs bigger premises.
So we refer back to 1985 because we have lived the nightmare which paradoxically was the catalyst to grow the club in the 1990s. Others refer to other clubs in transition like Portsmouth or facing the abyss (Coventry) but to me its simpler to refer to our own history to get the message across... and that's why this is one of the fastest growing trusts in the country.
Some don't particularly believe in supporter activism / collectivism but we think it is a way forwards to get more information and to help find solutions.
As for this big sea change in football you speak of, give me one example of supporters stopping a move to a new stadium. Or even of a major consultation exercise with supporters before such a move.
Clubs have only been "reformed" after the major damage was already done.
There's no bigger champion of Charlton Life than me, but don't let's kid ourselves that TJ or any new owner is going to "sound you out" before upping sticks to the Peninsula. The arrogance of English club owners has only got worse since 1985, because of the money sloshing around.
Even if there was an AVC on The Valley it would hold zero value in stopping TJ pushing ahead with his intended move, and if the supporters were collectively opposed to it (not a given), they would have to find a different way to stop him.
______
As for this big sea change in football you speak of, give me one example of supporters stopping a move to a new stadium.
---------
Firstly, I didn't say sea change, but given that the only communication we had at our disposal then was a weekly local rag, then it was a completely different world.
You could equally flip that and say since our Valley exile episode though has probably been approx 30 club moves away from traditional stadia (a third of the football league). How many of those were fiercely opposed by their supporters ? How many have been for the detrimental development of their club ? I'd guess the percentage is small.
It's got nothing to do with losing faith, it's got to do with cold hard reality that the ACV will buy us six months in certain scenarios to do something, but little more.
Both AFKA and myself have both said we see no reason not to sign, but we're simply pointing out that we need to be very clear that an AVC is a limited tool in the defence of 'Charlton at The Valley'.
Yes of course it's better than nothing, but if you want Trust members who simply say 'Yes Barnie' (and I know you don't) then you won't find the sort of people we might need for a 'Valley Party II'. Let it spur you (EDIT: us all) on to find the solution to keep Charlton and the Valley together, mate, it's what we all want.
I can't really comment on the extent to which fans were consulted, but equally I can't recall strong organised opposition to the move - I suspect generally not because they were caught unaware, but because the case for moving was presented well by the respective boards.
To me, the good news of the ACV is that it hampers an opportunist sale, and it probably hampers the club heading recklessly into a sale and lease back arrangement too. We do get six months notice of a sale too, which is hardly a downside. I'm sure the answer to the question posed by the OP is 'yes, we should pursue an ACV, but we need to understand it only protects The Valley and we shouldn't presume it necessarily protects the 'Charlton at The Valley' marriage we all desire.
I am beginning to lose sight of exactly what it is you are trying to achieve with your argument, so I will just comment on the other grounds you mention. Many of them replaced grounds which were shitholes. Others increased the financial clout of an already big FAPL club that was outgrowing its capacity - that is how Arsenal and Man city fans were sold the moves. You seem to forget that in this period the Valley was also completely redeveloped to FAPL standards. With the exception of one poster on here, nobody argues that the Valley is like Burnden Park, Filbert street, the Baseball etc. But many people do comment that their replacements are "soulless". The Valley has a soul, because so many of us are attached to it. It reminds us where we came from, on so many different levels. We have the bricks commemorating our loved ones who took us there in the first place.
The merits of an actual move are a whole different topic as AFKA noted earlier. We can have that discussion here, which will be ignored by those who would make the decision. Or we can have it in the context of an ACV, which gives us six months to assess the real cost of a move, and campaign to either stop it or modify it. And to give us time to at least stipulate what should be done with the commemorative bricks.
What do YOU think the Trust should be doing, and would that thing be something more effective at this stage in the Trust's development than applying for an ACV?
People are saying that it only buys you 6 months, well that is 6 months more than what you have at present, and the scenario where a chairman or board just decide to move, because of a financial plan/investment opportunity to me as a fan how does that make it an improvement. The Greenwich peninsular is often cited. I cannot see the council providing the infastructure, and moving to a barren site. Blackwell tunnel cannot cope as it is?. And does this current owner have the financial clout to build a modern stadia, ? what capacity?.
We cannot even fill the Valley at present,?. Visions of a new valley somewhere, being used 20 times a year? . I would like to see the financial details of that one to show a sustainable investment?. Wet spam are going to struggle with there move to the Olypic, playing mid week games against Swansea, and they are in the prem?
As has been stated this does NOT stop the club, or future owners moving it is a consultation process?. It may well be added to to include the Ground and training venues?...... as well as other benefits that could give the fans a right to comment.
What is so wrong with that?. So AVC is not a perfect solution, but is a step forward signalling that fans should have a say? ..... or do we just put up with the caprices of business people, who may fancy a change?
In summary we know its not perfect, but let's get out there and back this positively, at the very least its a rallying call for fans, and as AFKA says a good 'Trustworthy' campaign (forgive the pun). I also hope it will spur more interest in the Trust generally and persuade people to join.
Bottom line the Trust thing is only what we make it, we need the 'decryers' so we don't walk into things blind, I was one of those in some sense before we made it policy. But we also need that intellect and energy to help us positively.
from the way I read it you have the I think its better to do this than nothing
and then the
even doing the AVC is not really going to solve an issue if the club decide to move the football team else where as all you would have is a stadium and no team in it
I value all of Riks contribution believe me, and even some of Barts (even though he's a self confessed grumpster)
So in short I completely agree with the limitations and the need to find better ways to do this. I believe one of those is to gradually increase our influence, who knows where that might lead, that is why I say keep the faith not meaning just do as I say, but rather that there are many ways to skin a cat, but it may be a long and slow process. We should grab this opportunity as one increment in that process.
I have not said anything negative about the action (I congratulated on it). No one has said anything negative about it. So why am i being made to feel like I have simply by saying that as new legislation I question the effectiveness an AVC offers in the scenarios we may potentially encounter?
That's not an opposing view to the action. Yet any form of comment gets hit with a barrage back as if it is a challenge. 91 of the 168 posts have been provided by just five Trust people.
I'm happy that the Trust are doing it, and i don't think they need to be doing anything else.
You don't always have to be doing something.
Clive Efford called earlier this year for this legislation to be beefed up to include whenever any ground was sold, perhaps we should ask him where he's got with that..
Also this article interests me July is supposed to be hmgovs deadline for football reform submissions
http://m.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/may/23/government-bill-football-reform
The Trust though - and I am not on the executive of it - has to be always doing something because it needs to build its membership to a point where it has to be taken half seriously, and to give those who joined, reasons to stay with it. And these guys are working their nuts off.
I've outlined several times why I'm questioning whether the ACV actually protects our common aim of securing Charlton Athletic at The Valley to the extent that seems to be widely accepted. I think it's important that we understand its limitations and desist in presenting it as some kind of panacea to protect supporters. It should form part of a wider strategy, and whilst Barnie has encouragingly indicated this is indeed the case we continue to vary on our views of its effectiveness in certain scenarios.
To answer your opener, in my last post to you, I was responding to your request for "one example of supporters stopping a move to a new stadium." It's an unqualified query - one needs to assume that there was a desire to prevent the move in the first place. For this, and for the ACV, the specific scenario is absolutely the salient factor.
AFKA and I have both said - repeatedly - that we support the ACV, and whilst I can't speak for AFKA I have indeed signed the petition to act on that support. I recognise my point has been laboured, but people will insist on continuing to post things that I believe paints an overly-optimistic picture of the effectiveness of an ACV.
It won't, in itself, prevent the club from moving to a new stadium. It may, in certain circumstances, buy us time to take action. I do think, however, it would strengthen our arm politically if we could get the club to publicly support the ACV.
For the avoidance of doubt, and for the last time now, I agree applying for an ACV is the right course of action - just I don't think we should over-estimate its effectiveness in place of continuing to investigate other courses that would strengthen it.
I also disagree that CAS Trust and I as the Chair, or our website are overplaying the value of this, we simply aren't.
It is what it is, and part of that is symbolic. It is young legislation and is hopefully an early incarnation of something that will get stronger.
I welcome your support, and debate, and look forward to more input from you and others who think as I do that we need to do an awful lot more. This is one of the lower rungs of our ladder, as is maybe reaching 500 plus members.
I hope more fans will support this, and understand it the way I do as a significant step.
I'd love to be wrong, but my understanding is that it will only affect the last part. There's no and/or. There's not even an or. If the club are intent on a move and not dependent on an immediate sale of The Valley, it will be entirely ineffective.
I accept 'panacea' might be overstating it, but you keep referring me to the site and the FAQs and I think they overstate the case a bit. My concern is that supporters will think 'job done', although I'm encouraged that you and Barnie clearly don't.
What I forgot to follow up earlier was Rick's comment about the fixed charges. Given that there is a charge against The Valley, could the bank(s) in effect force Charlton to remain at The Valley until the charge was released/fulfilled?
I honestly don't think there's a way of conclusively ensuring that Charlton absolutely have to stay at the Valley no matter what. I'm not even sure I think that's a good idea. I'm open to the fact that one day in the future someone might come up with a plan and we as a supporter base think "actually, that's a good idea, that's what's best for this club" and reluctantly we'd agree. What I think is important, however, is that that consultation takes place. Yes, ACV doesn't work in all scenarios, but it gives us more than we have right now.