PS I think ACV is positive in its own right as a safeguard of sorts although far from perfect. But as well as that it has value both in highlighting the Valley (and CAFC) and its importance in the local community, and also a great example of an activity the Trust can get its teeth into, and helps perhaps establish what a supporters' trust is the consciousness of fans. So there are numerous benefits to it, but not cynically so, its just a statement of fact. If we were being uncessarily sensationalist in our campaign which we haven't I hope been at any stage, then that might be different.
HI Razil. As you may remember I am one of those still not convinced about the Trust but I did want to update you. I have signed the petition because, although I think companies will be perfectly able to ignore an ACV, I decided there was no harm in having one so why not. That got me thinking about the Trust. Whilst I am not convinced it will make any real difference to the club as it wont have a place on the board and can therefore be ignored by the owners; does that mean it is doing any real harm? And the answer was of course not.
So whilst I haven't signed up yet I am moving that way! I have probably moved from anti through sceptical to vague acceptance. Which probably means I'll sign up in a few weeks / months. You may wonder why I'm telling your this, but its simply because, if I've gone this way so may a lot of others. I think projects like ACV are better for the Trust than safe standing (certainly during its establishment period) as it has less divided opinion and much more relevance to our club and fans, as opposed ot the wider footballing community. So keep chipping away, you never what that last push will be!
Actually I should amend that. I do know what the final push will be. It will come when I see a picutre of you in the press which doesn't look like supporting Charlton is like someone sticking pins in your eyes!
My advice is to get your finger out. When the Trust takes over the club and Barnie is picking the team, no-one with a share number over 600 has a chance of getting a look in. And we are up to 576 already
Received support from local MP and Goverment minister regarding the ACV. Thought he was very warm towards the club, first politician to publicly support us.
Dear Ken
Thank you for your recent email regarding registering the Valley as an asset of community value. As you mention, the club has many supporters in the constituency and, through the work of organisations such as the club’s Community Trust, engages young people from across Old Bexley and Sidcup in sport and other community activities.
Charlton Athletic football club has been at the heart of South London for over 100 years and designating its home as an asset of community value will ensure that it is preserved for future generations to enjoy. Protecting the Valley in this way will ensure that local parents can continue to take their children to their first Charlton match and that young people continue to be inspired by and engaged with sport in their local area.
I am happy to add my support and wish you and the Trust the best of luck with the campaign.
No, I don't trust as i stated, my view has nothing to do with ownership but that I just don't think having an AVC on a ground ultimately carries any value. Coventry is completely superate to us, they have no ground that the club owns, and even if they did, what value would it hold in the situation of their owners deciding to move the club to Northampton ? I can't see how it would have stopped that ? If there was an AVC on the Ricoh, what difference would it have made ?
My point re Coventry is that it's incredibly easy for clubs owners to cart their teams off to a newer, cheaper venue with little regard for the wishes of fans. Currently the Valley is owned by the same people that own the club, to effect a Coventry scenario they would almost certainly have to sell the Valley and ACV gives us forewarning and the opportunity to organise ourselves, something we do not have now so for me that is what carries weight.
Again, you are correct it is a right to bid, not a right to buy - but we have been very, very clear about that in all of our communications. However a guaranteed right to buy private property doesn't exist in English law right now so lets make the best of the tools available to us ?
It will give us time to mobilise the troops something we did not have 28 years ago .
No, I don't trust as i stated, my view has nothing to do with ownership but that I just don't think having an AVC on a ground ultimately carries any value. Coventry is completely superate to us, they have no ground that the club owns, and even if they did, what value would it hold in the situation of their owners deciding to move the club to Northampton ? I can't see how it would have stopped that ? If there was an AVC on the Ricoh, what difference would it have made ?
My point re Coventry is that it's incredibly easy for clubs owners to cart their teams off to a newer, cheaper venue with little regard for the wishes of fans. Currently the Valley is owned by the same people that own the club, to effect a Coventry scenario they would almost certainly have to sell the Valley and ACV gives us forewarning and the opportunity to organise ourselves, something we do not have now so for me that is what carries weight.
Again, you are correct it is a right to bid, not a right to buy - but we have been very, very clear about that in all of our communications. However a guaranteed right to buy private property doesn't exist in English law right now so lets make the best of the tools available to us ?
It will give us time to mobilise the troops something we did not have 28 years ago .
Now phase 4 has started with real activity as opposed to a simple appeal - with ACV and some other activities to follow it is going to be ambitious - 400 members please to take us to 1,000 and another 2,000 contacts to get upto 5,000!
Have I missed something here?
Another 400 takes the number to 1,000 then another 2,000 makes it 5,000. I thought 1+2 was 3! ;-)
With all the discussion of the limits of the ACV it is interesting that you should allude to the fact that it is an 'activity' being used to raise membership.
I've read most of this thread in one go today. I had already signed up to the ACV. I don't, personally, think it will make any difference, but it does raise the profile of the Trust and fans in general, and I think this is a good thing. I remember something in the media a few months ago where Chelsea held a consultation about Stanford Bridge. I can't remember the details now, and obviously, Chelsea are a bigger draw for the media, but I applaud the work that has gone into doing this.
However, I tend to agree with AFKA, I don't believe that the Trust has to be seen to be doing anything in particular. Sure they want to keep growing awareness and increase support - safety in numbers and all that, but the main aim of the Trust is to 'To Preserve Charlton Athletic Football Club for This and Future Generations'. I read that as doing what ever is necessary to ensure preservation. Sometimes there will be no immediate threat to the club and I'm not sure the Trust need to go looking for one.
I've just been on the Trust web site and it looks very professional, all be it that I've not looked at any other clubs' Trust sites, and the articles are interesting and well written. From memory I believe that the main, initial, trust was established from members of CL. I'd be interested to know just how much involvement there is in the team running things comes from people that are not on here. I think this will be crucial in understanding how to reach those that do not spend a lot of time looking at Charlton related web sites - forums, blogs etc.
If it's of any interest (and I didn't intend to change topic - I can't see the need for a new thread) my Dad, who is 71, has been a fan for over 60 years, he buys the program and the VOTV (and did in the past) and he reads every page of every one. He doesn't really know what the trust is or what they are doing. He is not on here but goes onto the OS (when he has to these days) and reads a number of blogs - including my own. Despite being in good health, he is not going to live for ever and is probably too old to get involved in something big should the need arise. However, I suspect that there are many that would be interested and perhaps campaigns that are predominately internet based will pass these people by.
I have no idea of numbers and chances are, if most of the research done by the Trust has come from CL or the CAST site, nor will the Trust, but there will, probably, be a large proportion of Charlton fans that do not spend a lot of time on the internet. Many will not work at a desk with a computer and many will just not be competent and/or interested in doing so.
If this is the case I suspect that most of the awareness of the trust and most of the feedback will have come from a certain demographic - especially true if it has all been collated via the internet. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but it is entirely possible that most of the Trust members are CL members and vice versa. If this is the case then there is, obviously, a limit to the number of members that can be relied upon to sign up.
I'm not offering any solutions, and maybe the Trust committee already have plans in place to cater for those people, but without criticising, and I'm really not, and taking into account it's, relative, youth I think to be taken seriously the Trust needs to have nearer to 10,000 members.
Again, can I reiterate that I'm not knocking the Trust for only having 600 members at this stage, but I just think that the internet, for it's great benefits, is not going to be enough to get this established.
As pointed out 100+200+300 = 600 where we are now and another 400 = 1,000 members When it comes to subscribers and Twitter followers we appear to always have c. 5 x the membership and we have gone from 500 to 1,000 to a 3,000 network. And once we get to 5,000 I think it is safe to say that we are in contact with a fair portion of the fanbase, especially given the readership levels of our weekly emails.
There was a large cross over with Charlton Life to start with but we have now diversified through the various activities so that traffic coming to www.castrust.org originates from many places - Twitter, our weekly emails, internet searches and now links from the club website since we started working with them. Only 25% of traffic and signatures from the e-petition came from Charlton Life.
You ask several key questions: should the Trust do anything and should it look to reach fans beyond the internet (and beyond Charlton Life) and how many members does the Trust need to be taken seriously.
Allow me to start with the last item - I don't know what the number of members needs to be for the Trust "to be taken seriously" but we can ask either quietly or perhaps publicly... and then use that as a challenge to ourselves and the fans... right now the simple fact is that the Trust is on the right trajectory... numbers keep raising and there doesn't need to be a hard sell. Perhaps as numbers grow and our reach is shown to be into all parts of the demographic, all sides of the ground then we can ask members to ask their friends and family and ask subscribers to pay their fiver.
For the Trust to continue to grow in numbers, perception and maturity, i.e., how it operates I believe 100% that it needs to be active and visible. You (and AFKA) might view the Trust as some type of insurance or emergency service but I simply cannot see how it will grow to the numbers you mention by just sitting back and waiting... especially if people also say that "a fiver a head won't change anything anyway so why bother".
Having done the basic setting up and learnt about publishing and estabishing a website - thanks for the complements - we are now in a position to look at tangible activity... The ACV is the first and we could ask how many signatures should we be getting? The number is ticking up towards the first thousand and we will start approaching fans outside the home games to increase the numbers AND to diversify our reach - hopefully that answers your challenge re. demographics and Charlton Life... we talk to fans all the time, we listen to them and our surveys provide us with rough summaries of opinion...
So yes, we want to reach more and more fans and we want to preserve CAFC so perhaps we can find a way to link the two. Before we get to 10,000 members let's get to 10,000 subscribers and Twitter followers...
Our research has shown that the club lost in the region of £7m last year and we believe that this helps by highlighting the issue and bringing clarity where many might wish to throw all kinds of rumour and conjecture in. The question is what will the Trust and the fanbase want to do about this obvious threat to the very existence of the club? Some call for more expenditure and reach for one of those golden tickets back to the Premier League, some attack the current board for getting the club this far on the journey but not giving enough feedback. So let's see what we, the Trust can come up with, and whether it captures the imagination of the fans...
If it was that easy, it would have been done already!
No, I don't trust as i stated, my view has nothing to do with ownership but that I just don't think having an AVC on a ground ultimately carries any value. Coventry is completely superate to us, they have no ground that the club owns, and even if they did, what value would it hold in the situation of their owners deciding to move the club to Northampton ? I can't see how it would have stopped that ? If there was an AVC on the Ricoh, what difference would it have made ?
My point re Coventry is that it's incredibly easy for clubs owners to cart their teams off to a newer, cheaper venue with little regard for the wishes of fans. Currently the Valley is owned by the same people that own the club, to effect a Coventry scenario they would almost certainly have to sell the Valley and ACV gives us forewarning and the opportunity to organise ourselves, something we do not have now so for me that is what carries weight.
Again, you are correct it is a right to bid, not a right to buy - but we have been very, very clear about that in all of our communications. However a guaranteed right to buy private property doesn't exist in English law right now so lets make the best of the tools available to us ?
It will give us time to mobilise the troops something we did not have 28 years ago .
Spot on.
I'm not sure it does? It only says they club has to give the community six months before they sell it. They can still move the football team away with a moments notice. The ground was never actually up for sale was it?
Not sure what the quote says but I believe that was highlighted much higher up the thread. Acv is far from perfect but its a start, better than nowt and may be beefed up eventually.
No, I don't trust as i stated, my view has nothing to do with ownership but that I just don't think having an AVC on a ground ultimately carries any value. Coventry is completely superate to us, they have no ground that the club owns, and even if they did, what value would it hold in the situation of their owners deciding to move the club to Northampton ? I can't see how it would have stopped that ? If there was an AVC on the Ricoh, what difference would it have made ?
My point re Coventry is that it's incredibly easy for clubs owners to cart their teams off to a newer, cheaper venue with little regard for the wishes of fans. Currently the Valley is owned by the same people that own the club, to effect a Coventry scenario they would almost certainly have to sell the Valley and ACV gives us forewarning and the opportunity to organise ourselves, something we do not have now so for me that is what carries weight.
Again, you are correct it is a right to bid, not a right to buy - but we have been very, very clear about that in all of our communications. However a guaranteed right to buy private property doesn't exist in English law right now so lets make the best of the tools available to us ?
It will give us time to mobilise the troops something we did not have 28 years ago .
Spot on.
I'm not sure it does? It only says they club has to give the community six months before they sell it. They can still move the football team away with a moments notice. The ground was never actually up for sale was it?
So DRF, the club could move the football team away at a moments notice?, to another ground like Selhurst, or The Olympic stadium. As I have stated I would not be going to either, I can watch West Ham free any week if I wanted to, but have no interest. If the club were to do this, 'groundshare' ......I think there would be a dramatic loss of support. Only my opinion , but as we are 'kite flying', I will fly that one? But yes the club could move the football team overnight, which is why when I went to the commons there was talk of extending this to the training ground and the name of the club, although there was a muddled opinion at how they would achieve this. This is a right to be consulted, and time to raise funds and get support. Steve Bradshaw stated that there were no plans to sell the Valley/move away....... Good, let us hope that CAFC stay at the valley.
Clive Efford the labour sports minister and local MP has also supported the campaign and has commented about the possible legislation that he hopes to bring in to enhance the localism act on the trust website exclusively for the trust. That makes both Labour and the Conservative local MP's, and ministers supportive of the CAFC application, along with the board at CAFC. see: http://www.castrust.org/2013/07/mp-supports-acv-and-calls-for-more-efford-on-legislation/
It's weird, the United Trust put their application in about three months ago. The statute talks about their being an eight week period between submission and announcement but clearly MUSTs application has taken way longer than that.
It will be interesting to see how Trafford council deal with this as Oxford and our applications have been supported by their clubs so we will see what happens when the club is against it.
Man U fans annoy me with this sort of thing. They enjoy, and have enjoyed, the trappings of being and international brand for many years. Not for them is the shame of going into a sports shop and not finding your clubs shirt. Not for them is going to other countries and having peopel say who? when you say who you support. Their player buying power is greatly enhanced by their profile, and thus their ability on the pitch is also. But the second someting doesn't go their way they throw their toys out the pram, don their green and yellow scarfs and claim they are a little old community club and the nasty big boys should leave them alone.
... but according to the BBC World Service last night, the club are actually appealing against the decision!
I don't think the legislation gives the right to an appeal, I guess they could ask for judicial review though ?
SE9 - I'm sure you know far more about the technicalities than the BBC, whose very brief report on the World Service stated that ACV protects Old Trafford against any further development. Thanks to the info given by you and other members of the Trust, I know this isn't true.
... but according to the BBC World Service last night, the club are actually appealing against the decision!
I don't think the legislation gives the right to an appeal, I guess they could ask for judicial review though ?
SE9 - I'm sure you know far more about the technicalities than the BBC, whose very brief report on the World Service stated that ACV protects Old Trafford against any further development. Thanks to the info given by you and other members of the Trust, I know this isn't true.
To be honest the legislation is so recent that there isn't a precedent which shows what happens when the grounds owner formally challenges the decision. The owner of the Kassam Stadium didn't support Oxfords application but I'm not sure if he went as far as to formally challenge the decision. As I say I think this may have to be by way of judicial review but I'm not 100% on that.
Comments
That got me thinking about the Trust. Whilst I am not convinced it will make any real difference to the club as it wont have a place on the board and can therefore be ignored by the owners; does that mean it is doing any real harm? And the answer was of course not.
So whilst I haven't signed up yet I am moving that way! I have probably moved from anti through sceptical to vague acceptance. Which probably means I'll sign up in a few weeks / months.
You may wonder why I'm telling your this, but its simply because, if I've gone this way so may a lot of others. I think projects like ACV are better for the Trust than safe standing (certainly during its establishment period) as it has less divided opinion and much more relevance to our club and fans, as opposed ot the wider footballing community.
So keep chipping away, you never what that last push will be!
take as long as you like sir, its up to us to make the right arguments, we have no divine right, and must not take support for granted
BR
My advice is to get your finger out. When the Trust takes over the club and Barnie is picking the team, no-one with a share number over 600 has a chance of getting a look in. And we are up to 576 already
Thought he was very warm towards the club, first politician to publicly support us.
Dear Ken
Thank you for your recent email regarding registering the Valley as an asset of community value. As you mention, the club has many supporters in the constituency and, through the work of organisations such as the club’s Community Trust, engages young people from across Old Bexley and Sidcup in sport and other community activities.
Charlton Athletic football club has been at the heart of South London for over 100 years and designating its home as an asset of community value will ensure that it is preserved for future generations to enjoy. Protecting the Valley in this way will ensure that local parents can continue to take their children to their first Charlton match and that young people continue to be inspired by and engaged with sport in their local area.
I am happy to add my support and wish you and the Trust the best of luck with the campaign.
Yours sincerely,
James Brokenshire
When it comes to subscribers and Twitter followers we appear to always have c. 5 x the membership and we have gone from 500 to 1,000 to a 3,000 network. And once we get to 5,000 I think it is safe to say that we are in contact with a fair portion of the fanbase, especially given the readership levels of our weekly emails.
There was a large cross over with Charlton Life to start with but we have now diversified through the various activities so that traffic coming to www.castrust.org originates from many places - Twitter, our weekly emails, internet searches and now links from the club website since we started working with them. Only 25% of traffic and signatures from the e-petition came from Charlton Life.
You ask several key questions: should the Trust do anything and should it look to reach fans beyond the internet (and beyond Charlton Life) and how many members does the Trust need to be taken seriously.
Allow me to start with the last item - I don't know what the number of members needs to be for the Trust "to be taken seriously" but we can ask either quietly or perhaps publicly... and then use that as a challenge to ourselves and the fans... right now the simple fact is that the Trust is on the right trajectory... numbers keep raising and there doesn't need to be a hard sell. Perhaps as numbers grow and our reach is shown to be into all parts of the demographic, all sides of the ground then we can ask members to ask their friends and family and ask subscribers to pay their fiver.
For the Trust to continue to grow in numbers, perception and maturity, i.e., how it operates I believe 100% that it needs to be active and visible. You (and AFKA) might view the Trust as some type of insurance or emergency service but I simply cannot see how it will grow to the numbers you mention by just sitting back and waiting... especially if people also say that "a fiver a head won't change anything anyway so why bother".
Having done the basic setting up and learnt about publishing and estabishing a website - thanks for the complements - we are now in a position to look at tangible activity... The ACV is the first and we could ask how many signatures should we be getting? The number is ticking up towards the first thousand and we will start approaching fans outside the home games to increase the numbers AND to diversify our reach - hopefully that answers your challenge re. demographics and Charlton Life... we talk to fans all the time, we listen to them and our surveys provide us with rough summaries of opinion...
So yes, we want to reach more and more fans and we want to preserve CAFC so perhaps we can find a way to link the two. Before we get to 10,000 members let's get to 10,000 subscribers and Twitter followers...
Our research has shown that the club lost in the region of £7m last year and we believe that this helps by highlighting the issue and bringing clarity where many might wish to throw all kinds of rumour and conjecture in. The question is what will the Trust and the fanbase want to do about this obvious threat to the very existence of the club? Some call for more expenditure and reach for one of those golden tickets back to the Premier League, some attack the current board for getting the club this far on the journey but not giving enough feedback. So let's see what we, the Trust can come up with, and whether it captures the imagination of the fans...
If it was that easy, it would have been done already!
As I have stated I would not be going to either, I can watch West Ham free any week if I wanted to, but have no interest.
If the club were to do this, 'groundshare' ......I think there would be a dramatic loss of support. Only my opinion , but as we are 'kite flying', I will fly that one?
But yes the club could move the football team overnight, which is why when I went to the commons there was talk of extending this to the training ground and the name of the club, although there was a muddled opinion at how they would achieve this. This is a right to be consulted, and time to raise funds and get support.
Steve Bradshaw stated that there were no plans to sell the Valley/move away....... Good, let us hope that CAFC stay at the valley.
see: http://www.castrust.org/2013/07/mp-supports-acv-and-calls-for-more-efford-on-legislation/
It will be interesting to see how Trafford council deal with this as Oxford and our applications have been supported by their clubs so we will see what happens when the club is against it.
But the second someting doesn't go their way they throw their toys out the pram, don their green and yellow scarfs and claim they are a little old community club and the nasty big boys should leave them alone.
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-23524741
Anyway - here's the Trusts take on this mornings news
http://www.castrust.org/2013/08/acv-100-record-continues/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter