Just to be clear, is there any evidence that the acv process / highlighting the importance of The Valley, need for community / supporter involvement etc did NOT have any impact (even the slightest) whatsoever on the Harris group's reason for not persuing ?
as much as there is evidence he was interested in the first place, I think the SLP article falls over for the reason AB said, who exactly is it quoting certainly not CAS Trust the instigators of the Valley ACV application, it is wrong in that sense and wrong that it suggests that is the aim of ACV, and is conveniently fitted to the needs of the article for someone to blame in my view.
Is there any evidence that CAS Trust or Charlton fans are against a billionaire owner who might want a ground move, none whatsoever..
Common sense must sometimes prevail, and it tells us that ACV in itself should not be the reason as for English football, well blame that, but not by inference a supporter's group who have acted in good faith to try and give fans a say in the future of their ground particularly given our history.
Yes Toby came on here but a proper apology/retraction would be better, because you're article is simply wrong in the way I have laid out.
Sorry, but I really don't want to get involved in a discussion about any of this. It will seem like a cop-out to some, but all that stuff is private - and yes, I know use of that word is heretical on a messageboard. I don't normally post on them if I can avoid it, but felt that, as a company, we were being unfairly attacked and to answer that point under a pseudonym would have been dishonorable.
The correct and proper course of action, Toby.
Your sources tell you things in confidence with a clear understanding about what is reportable. Everything else is private and off the record and it would be unethical and unprofessional to divulge any more on a public message board.
I'm sorry you were subjected to such abuse when you were simply doing your job conscientiously and to the best of your abilities.
I accept that your coverage of games iprobably matches up to your claim. Would you concede that your linking of the alleged breakdown of talks to ACV was a mistake, and do you understand the distress it caused Barnie and The Trust who had in good faith tried to help you write your previous exclusive - in- print article on ACV being passed?
Respect to you for coming on here, either way
I have spoken to Barnie and explained the situation to him. I haven't seen any comments on me - I am a reporter, and report facts. If anyone wants to aim comments at me, that is fine, because it is their issue, not mine, as I know I do that job conscientiously and with care.
Barnie and the rest of the Trust were accused by people on here of being responsible for a bid apparently failing. That is a most unpleasant thing to read, regardless of who wrote it.
Link?
A few people like IA, Large and Oakster queried the timing, but I've not seen one post that has made any such accusations.
Just to be clear to Raz and co, i'm not blaming them blah blah. I'm not blaming anyone at all.
But no one seems to know the reason why it didn't go through or why he reduced / removed his interest. What i would be sure of though was that he was sold a ticket that was structured fully around the relocation of the club and the opportunities of the peninsula development.
I would certainly attach more weight to discovering there was likely to be some form of potential delaying structure being put in place / potential opposition, difficulties at play that he might not have been made aware of then, than the ridiculous rumour that he only at the last minute discovered about relegation in English football.
The Trusts stance at present seems to be one of 'no we won't stay in the way of anything, we just want to be involved in the process', but that appears to me to be a clear change from when this process was started which was built around protecting The Valley from these exactly these sort of speculators whose primary interests are not that of Charlton Athletic. 'Charlton is The Valley, The Valley is Charlton' or something like that i'm sure i remember, along with canvassing along the lines of Save The Valley. Prague and Raz i'm sure have always fitted into the 'over my dead body' category until recent weeks (apologies if wrong).
The stance only seemed to change to one of primarily a desire for consultation once it emerged that quite a few fans openly wanted the move.
I can see from the outside why there could have been some miscommunication and a greater feeling to some American that the scheme he was buying into carried a lot more risks than what he first was pitched. Ironically, probably also the exact reason this Cash / Jiminez partnership has failed.
I accept that your coverage of games iprobably matches up to your claim. Would you concede that your linking of the alleged breakdown of talks to ACV was a mistake, and do you understand the distress it caused Barnie and The Trust who had in good faith tried to help you write your previous exclusive - in- print article on ACV being passed?
Respect to you for coming on here, either way
I have spoken to Barnie and explained the situation to him. I haven't seen any comments on me - I am a reporter, and report facts. If anyone wants to aim comments at me, that is fine, because it is their issue, not mine, as I know I do that job conscientiously and with care.
Barnie and the rest of the Trust were accused by people on here of being responsible for a bid apparently failing. That is a most unpleasant thing to read, regardless of who wrote it.
Link?
A few people like IA, Large and Oakster queried the timing, but I've not seen one post that has made any such accusations.
I think the a accusations were made by BexleyBoy on the ITTV forum
I would certainly attach more weight to discovering there was likely to be some form of potential delaying structure being put in place / potential opposition, difficulties at play that he might not have been made aware of then, than the ridiculous rumour that he only at the last minute discovered about relegation in English football.
These Americans seem to have demonstrated that they are no mug punters. As such they would take note of things in due diligence, and they would undoubtedly have taken note of the ACV initiative. However there is more than one way of looking at that activity. They may well have NOT seen it as a negative 'delaying structure....difficulties', but as a positive sign that there are a group of supporters who care and are loyal, and that supporter involvement would actually add to the sale value of Charlton Athletic. To know that you are investing in a vibrant club, with vibrant active supporters with whom you could potentially form an exciting and positive relationship to grow the club, could easily be interpreted as a very good thing. Maybe the Americans balanced negatives found in due diligence against the very positive force of supporter involvement. However they may have decided the negatives outweigh the positives.
bertpalmer Member December 11 so has the trust scuppered the takeover
Bert was the first person to ask the question. He didn't make any accusations whatsoever and his post certainly doesn't warrant "That is a most unpleasant thing to read".
I accept that your coverage of games iprobably matches up to your claim. Would you concede that your linking of the alleged breakdown of talks to ACV was a mistake, and do you understand the distress it caused Barnie and The Trust who had in good faith tried to help you write your previous exclusive - in- print article on ACV being passed?
Respect to you for coming on here, either way
I have spoken to Barnie and explained the situation to him. I haven't seen any comments on me - I am a reporter, and report facts. If anyone wants to aim comments at me, that is fine, because it is their issue, not mine, as I know I do that job conscientiously and with care.
Barnie and the rest of the Trust were accused by people on here of being responsible for a bid apparently failing. That is a most unpleasant thing to read, regardless of who wrote it.
Link?
A few people like IA, Large and Oakster queried the timing, but I've not seen one post that has made any such accusations.
It was Colin 1961 or whatever he calls himself. I can't be assed to find the link but I think it's in this thread.
bertpalmer Member December 11 so has the trust scuppered the takeover
Bert was the first person to ask the question. He didn't make any accusations whatsoever and his post certainly doesn't warrant "That is a most unpleasant thing to read".
I accept that your coverage of games iprobably matches up to your claim. Would you concede that your linking of the alleged breakdown of talks to ACV was a mistake, and do you understand the distress it caused Barnie and The Trust who had in good faith tried to help you write your previous exclusive - in- print article on ACV being passed?
Respect to you for coming on here, either way
I have spoken to Barnie and explained the situation to him. I haven't seen any comments on me - I am a reporter, and report facts. If anyone wants to aim comments at me, that is fine, because it is their issue, not mine, as I know I do that job conscientiously and with care.
Barnie and the rest of the Trust were accused by people on here of being responsible for a bid apparently failing. That is a most unpleasant thing to read, regardless of who wrote it.
Link?
A few people like IA, Large and Oakster queried the timing, but I've not seen one post that has made any such accusations.
It was Colin 1961 or whatever he calls himself. I can't be assed to find the link but I think it's in this thread.
I accept that your coverage of games iprobably matches up to your claim. Would you concede that your linking of the alleged breakdown of talks to ACV was a mistake, and do you understand the distress it caused Barnie and The Trust who had in good faith tried to help you write your previous exclusive - in- print article on ACV being passed?
Respect to you for coming on here, either way
I have spoken to Barnie and explained the situation to him. I haven't seen any comments on me - I am a reporter, and report facts. If anyone wants to aim comments at me, that is fine, because it is their issue, not mine, as I know I do that job conscientiously and with care.
Barnie and the rest of the Trust were accused by people on here of being responsible for a bid apparently failing. That is a most unpleasant thing to read, regardless of who wrote it.
Link?
A few people like IA, Large and Oakster queried the timing, but I've not seen one post that has made any such accusations.
It was Colin 1961 or whatever he calls himself. I can't be assed to find the link but I think it's in this thread.
Page 53 and although the post was removed, Paulie 8290 had already quoted him 'colin1961 said: The trust have put a massive nail in the future of Charlton, Harris does not want any hussle when he moves the club to a new stadium, he don't need it got so much money he just go and buy someone else who want to move to the next level. Who invented these figures, I know 6 ST holders who all think it would be the right thing for the clubs future to move to a new stadium.So I think this for and against figure are incorrect. But well done guys, div 1 next season then Admin or even no club at all, but at least The Valley will be standing'.
Feels like we are going round and round in circles here looking to blame other supporters, which does not help anyone. While some raise the spectre of ACV once more, aren't we overlooking potentially much more serious stumbling blocks:
a) the apparent claim that the club "owned" land on the peninsula? b) some of the issues raised in VOTV concerning the land on the peninsula earmarked for a stadium, that has poor public transport links (3/4 mile from N Greenwich), minimal parking and serious issues re being adjacent to a chemicals plant and a gasholder, both of which, according to the RBG masterplan, "significantly restrict development of the centre of the site to lightly populated uses."
I would suggest either of the latter would have had a much greater negative impact, yet they have barely been mentioned on here.
Sorry, but I really don't want to get involved in a discussion about any of this. It will seem like a cop-out to some, but all that stuff is private - and yes, I know use of that word is heretical on a messageboard. I don't normally post on them if I can avoid it, but felt that, as a company, we were being unfairly attacked and to answer that point under a pseudonym would have been dishonorable.
The correct and proper course of action, Toby.
Your sources tell you things in confidence with a clear understanding about what is reportable. Everything else is private and off the record and it would be unethical and unprofessional to divulge any more on a public message board.
I'm sorry you were subjected to such abuse when you were simply doing your job conscientiously and to the best of your abilities.
Just to make it clear that I have never been in the over my dead body camp re the Valley. But if I was I certainly wouldn't have been swayed by the opinions expressed on here. My view has always been, sceptical about the business case for moving, and believe we should be involved in an open discussion about the business case. I won't speak for Barnie or the others but if they had a significantly different view, I guess I wouldn't be involved.
Precisely Weegie. Slater has played a blinder but we should not be taken in so cheaply. To those who level accusations at the CAFCTrust, please tell me why the previous takeovers failed? I have genuinely tried to research ad infinitum all the background issues only to conclude that the move to the Peninsula was not a realistic plan and that the Trust has been designated as the fall guy for failed takeovers. I have no hidden agenda, I have tried to be completely open, I love CAFC and all it's community work. Plus, despite his weaknesses, I sill love Chrissy et al with a passion and still think that he is the only manager that is in with a chance of keeping us in the Champs. If I am wrong, I would genuinely like to be told why and more importantly, what else can we as supporters can do.
The Trusts stance at present seems to be one of 'no we won't stay in the way of anything, we just want to be involved in the process', but that appears to me to be a clear change from when this process was started which was built around protecting The Valley from these exactly these sort of speculators whose primary interests are not that of Charlton Athletic. 'Charlton is The Valley, The Valley is Charlton' or something like that i'm sure i remember, along with canvassing along the lines of Save The Valley. Prague and Raz i'm sure have always fitted into the 'over my dead body' category until recent weeks (apologies if wrong).
The stance only seemed to change to one of primarily a desire for consultation once it emerged that quite a few fans openly wanted the move.
AFKA - It is very simple. The Trust exists to ensure that supporter opinions can be formally voiced, and to try to ensure that those opinions have some influence on the running of the club. The task of the Trust board is to canvass supporter opinion and then seek to represent it. The Trust never took an "over my dead body" approach because that would be putting forward a position without canvassing opinions first.
I think you'll find that what Prague was saying was that, if and when canvassing opinions about a move took place, he would want to see a convincing business case that the chances of success / survival were greater away from The Valley than staying at The Valley. That is not "over my dead body", is it ?
I accept that your coverage of games iprobably matches up to your claim. Would you concede that your linking of the alleged breakdown of talks to ACV was a mistake, and do you understand the distress it caused Barnie and The Trust who had in good faith tried to help you write your previous exclusive - in- print article on ACV being passed?
Respect to you for coming on here, either way
I have spoken to Barnie and explained the situation to him. I haven't seen any comments on me - I am a reporter, and report facts. If anyone wants to aim comments at me, that is fine, because it is their issue, not mine, as I know I do that job conscientiously and with care.
Barnie and the rest of the Trust were accused by people on here of being responsible for a bid apparently failing. That is a most unpleasant thing to read, regardless of who wrote it.
Link?
A few people like IA, Large and Oakster queried the timing, but I've not seen one post that has made any such accusations.
Looking back at my post, its not placing any blame on the ACV whatsoever, I think the ACV is a good thing even if its constantly touted as ineffective & symbolic in nature.
However from this side of the Atlantic I still think that the culture clash between English sport with all its traditions, supporter engagement & history & North American sports with its franchises & never ending name/stadium/badge/location changes is very pertinent & relevant - I wonder if Harris is acquainted with the Glazers who would have stories to tell about fan opposition & trusts.
delete this thread its pointless now as we will be over the next few weeks. tit for tat posts getting silly and stil going on about the acv. pls put this thread out of its misery its painful reading now.
Just to be clear to Raz and co, i'm not blaming them blah blah. I'm not blaming anyone at all.
But no one seems to know the reason why it didn't go through or why he reduced / removed his interest. What i would be sure of though was that he was sold a ticket that was structured fully around the relocation of the club and the opportunities of the peninsula development.
I would certainly attach more weight to discovering there was likely to be some form of potential delaying structure being put in place / potential opposition, difficulties at play that he might not have been made aware of then, than the ridiculous rumour that he only at the last minute discovered about relegation in English football.
The Trusts stance at present seems to be one of 'no we won't stay in the way of anything, we just want to be involved in the process', but that appears to me to be a clear change from when this process was started which was built around protecting The Valley from these exactly these sort of speculators whose primary interests are not that of Charlton Athletic. 'Charlton is The Valley, The Valley is Charlton' or something like that i'm sure i remember, along with canvassing along the lines of Save The Valley. Prague and Raz i'm sure have always fitted into the 'over my dead body' category until recent weeks (apologies if wrong).
The stance only seemed to change to one of primarily a desire for consultation once it emerged that quite a few fans openly wanted the move.
I can see from the outside why there could have been some miscommunication and a greater feeling to some American that the scheme he was buying into carried a lot more risks than what he first was pitched. Ironically, probably also the exact reason this Cash / Jiminez partnership has failed.
Could be way off beam of course, just my take.
I'm not sure I can agree - here's an extract from our FAQ's released at the same time as we began this discussion;
Would CASTrust definitely attempt to make a bid for the Valley ? If such circumstances arose CAS Trust would open up consultation with the fan base to assess the desired course of action.
That's still the position. It doesn't really matter what Prague or Razil think (even though I don't think either is in the "over my dead body camp") that's the position of the Trust.
Comments
This is like a stroll round the Disney Store for him !
Is there any evidence that CAS Trust or Charlton fans are against a billionaire owner who might want a ground move, none whatsoever..
Common sense must sometimes prevail, and it tells us that ACV in itself should not be the reason as for English football, well blame that, but not by inference a supporter's group who have acted in good faith to try and give fans a say in the future of their ground particularly given our history.
Yes Toby came on here but a proper apology/retraction would be better, because you're article is simply wrong in the way I have laid out.
http://www.ebbsfleetunited.co.uk/home/archer-arrows-in/
A few people like IA, Large and Oakster queried the timing, but I've not seen one post that has made any such accusations.
But no one seems to know the reason why it didn't go through or why he reduced / removed his interest. What i would be sure of though was that he was sold a ticket that was structured fully around the relocation of the club and the opportunities of the peninsula development.
I would certainly attach more weight to discovering there was likely to be some form of potential delaying structure being put in place / potential opposition, difficulties at play that he might not have been made aware of then, than the ridiculous rumour that he only at the last minute discovered about relegation in English football.
The Trusts stance at present seems to be one of 'no we won't stay in the way of anything, we just want to be involved in the process', but that appears to me to be a clear change from when this process was started which was built around protecting The Valley from these exactly these sort of speculators whose primary interests are not that of Charlton Athletic. 'Charlton is The Valley, The Valley is Charlton' or something like that i'm sure i remember, along with canvassing along the lines of Save The Valley. Prague and Raz i'm sure have always fitted into the 'over my dead body' category until recent weeks (apologies if wrong).
The stance only seemed to change to one of primarily a desire for consultation once it emerged that quite a few fans openly wanted the move.
I can see from the outside why there could have been some miscommunication and a greater feeling to some American that the scheme he was buying into carried a lot more risks than what he first was pitched. Ironically, probably also the exact reason this Cash / Jiminez partnership has failed.
Could be way off beam of course, just my take.
bertpalmer Member
December 11
so has the trust scuppered the takeover
However there is more than one way of looking at that activity. They may well have NOT seen it as a negative 'delaying structure....difficulties', but as a positive sign that there are a group of supporters who care and are loyal, and that supporter involvement would actually add to the sale value of Charlton Athletic. To know that you are investing in a vibrant club, with vibrant active supporters with whom you could potentially form an exciting and positive relationship to grow the club, could easily be interpreted as a very good thing.
Maybe the Americans balanced negatives found in due diligence against the very positive force of supporter involvement.
However they may have decided the negatives outweigh the positives.
What's your favourite colour?
'colin1961 said:
The trust have put a massive nail in the future of Charlton, Harris does not want any hussle when he moves the club to a new stadium, he don't need it got so much money he just go and buy someone else who want to move to the next level.
Who invented these figures, I know 6 ST holders who all think it would be the right thing for the clubs future to move to a new stadium.So I think this for and against figure are incorrect.
But well done guys, div 1 next season then Admin or even no club at all, but at least The Valley will be standing'.
a) the apparent claim that the club "owned" land on the peninsula?
b) some of the issues raised in VOTV concerning the land on the peninsula earmarked for a stadium, that has poor public transport links (3/4 mile from N Greenwich), minimal parking and serious issues re being adjacent to a chemicals plant and a gasholder, both of which, according to the RBG masterplan, "significantly restrict development of the centre of the site to lightly populated uses."
I would suggest either of the latter would have had a much greater negative impact, yet they have barely been mentioned on here.
Looking back at my post, its not placing any blame on the ACV whatsoever, I think the ACV is a good thing even if its constantly touted as ineffective & symbolic in nature.
However from this side of the Atlantic I still think that the culture clash between English sport with all its traditions, supporter engagement & history & North American sports with its franchises & never ending name/stadium/badge/location changes is very pertinent & relevant - I wonder if Harris is acquainted with the Glazers who would have stories to tell about fan opposition & trusts.
Would CASTrust definitely attempt to make a bid for the Valley ?
If such circumstances arose CAS Trust would open up consultation with the fan base to assess the desired course of action.
That's still the position. It doesn't really matter what Prague or Razil think (even though I don't think either is in the "over my dead body camp") that's the position of the Trust.
Full FAQs here still, unchanged since the summer.
http://www.castrust.org/acv-faqs/