The only difference is that they've added a sentence (at the end of the 5th paragraph):
"And a fan group, Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust, is trying to block or delay any sale of the ground".
Both articles mention Cathedral - the property company who have had a lease on the proposed 'stadium' site (Morden Wharf) since March 2012 (as I've posted before) - but don't mention that their plans at the moment don't include any kind of stadium but only "a 5,000 capacity indoor entertainment area and a 10,000 capacity outdoor events space" (so not exactly cutting edge investigative journalism).
The only difference is that they've added a sentence (at the end of the 5th paragraph):
"And a fan group, Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust, is trying to block or delay any sale of the ground".
Both articles mention Cathedral - the property company who have had a lease on the proposed 'stadium' site (Morden Wharf) since March 2012 (as I've posted before) - but don't mention that their plans at the moment don't include any kind of stadium but only "a 5,000 capacity indoor entertainment area and a 10,000 capacity outdoor events space" (so not exactly cutting edge investigative journalism).
But has their architect practice (OMA) drawn up the plans yet? Cathedral's partners are Development Securities Ltd where a Mr Graham Prothero used to work. I am unable to find out if he is any relation to P/T Prothero.
The only difference is that they've added a sentence (at the end of the 5th paragraph):
"And a fan group, Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust, is trying to block or delay any sale of the ground".
Both articles mention Cathedral - the property company who have had a lease on the proposed 'stadium' site (Morden Wharf) since March 2012 (as I've posted before) - but don't mention that their plans at the moment don't include any kind of stadium but only "a 5,000 capacity indoor entertainment area and a 10,000 capacity outdoor events space" (so not exactly cutting edge investigative journalism).
But has their architect practice (OMA) drawn up the plans yet? Cathedral's partners are Development Securities Ltd where a Mr Graham Prothero used to work. I am unable to find out if he is any relation to P/T Prothero.
Probably not - as OMA were only appointed in July:
But what it does means (as I've also posted before) is that - unless Cathedral (or Development Securities) are our prospective new owners - there is probably only a limited time window for any new owners that wanted to move the club to negotiate with Cathedral (and the Council) to change their plans into something more suitable for use by a Championship/Premiership football club.
It also almost certainly means that any new stadium would be 'multi-purpose' - and be built by Cathedral, Development Securities, or some other property company - with Charlton as one of the tenants - and you only have to look at Coventry (and possibly West Ham in the future - who can't fill the Boleyn at the moment) to see how that could turn out.
I would suggest that large parts are factually incorrect.
The price, the nationality (not mentioned here but was on Friday), little opposition to the move, the omission of the other debts
Not like me to defend journalists but, from reading this thread, very few of us definitely want to stay at The Valley.
Most seem to say embrace the great opportunity or we need to change to progress.
Thus you can see why he concludes that there is little opposition.
I've said higher up the thread the ambivalence to a move surprises me.
I must be getting old.
Not the way I have read the posts ... majority state that if there is no choice and that by not moving, it would endanger the future of Charlton, then a move would be ... reluctantly ... supported.
Chris powell was just on sky sports news radio. He said he has heard of potential takeover talks and hopes it goes through soon so the club can move forward.
Chris powell was just on sky sports news radio. He said he has heard of potential takeover talks and hopes it goes through soon so the club can move forward.
Chris Powell reads Charlton Life? : - )
"hopes it goes through soon so the club can move forward" SCP is very clever in the way he can say so much in with what at first glance appears a run of the mill statement.
Back in the Glikstein days I used to stand in the covered end on rainy days and wonder if we would ever have a seated Valley. It was a bit like a dream. Then at Palace and Upton Park we all just wanted to be back at the Valley no matter what the ground looked like and to be sure it was a bit of a mess when we finally returned. My Grandad supported us when we went briefly to Catford and I am sure I will support Charlton if ever we were transplanted to the peninsula but why? My dream has come true. The Valley is now a lovely ground, unpretentious. We will never be an Arsenal and it seems silly to think we would ever reach the Champions League. Kevin Ayers used to say, 'Know who you are and be there.' Wise words we should take heed of.
I was also around in the Gliksten' days but never dreamt about a seated valley. There were seats in the stand (that we bought from Dartford!)
I don't know if it's been pointed out - presumably it has - but we do have a history on the Peninsula. It was our last ground before we moved to the Valley.
"The 4000 capacity Angerstein Athletic Ground could be described as Charlton Athletic's first "proper ground" although this was a ground share with Deptford Invicta FC. As the First World War progressed football appeared to have been abandoned and by the time the war had ended the Angerstein was used as a petrol storage facility. These days the site is now the Angerstein Business Park with no clues as to the existence of the stadium."
So where does Catford (The Mount) fit in here - as a matter of interest?
The Site of the 6th Ground : The Mount Stadium (1923-1924) Charlton stayed at The Valley until 1923, when the club moved to The Mount stadium in Catford as part of a proposed merger with Catford Southend Football Club to create a larger team with bigger support. The team wore the colours of "The Enders", light and dark blue vertical stripes. However, the move fell through and the Addicks returned to the Charlton area in 1924, returning to the traditional red and white colours in the process.
The Mount was a football stadium in Catford, (but not to be confused with Catford Stadium which you will find elsewhere on this website) located in the SW corner of Mountsfield Park. Catford South End F.C. (founded before 1914) developed the part of the park into a proper stadium with terracing. The Mount was unusual as it was elevated above the surrounding area and the reason for its name.
The position of The Mount was a contrast to The Valley, which was sunken ground that was originally a chalk pit. The Mount was a more modest stadium, holding roughly 50,000 compared to The Valley's 75,000, and had an appearance like a fort owing to concrete pylons having to be raised to support the terraces which were erected on sloping ground (down hill). Despite being the largest ground in the world at the time apart from the newly completed Wembley Stadium, Charlton Athletic F.C. decided to move to The Mount for the 1923-24 season as they failed to fill The Valley with supporters. The move to The Mount and the construction works to improve the terracing were almost entirely funded by Harry Isaacs, owner of The Dartmouth Arms in Laleham Road adjacent to the park, who was a passionate racing and football fan and son of Sam Isaacs, founder of the UK's first table service Fish & Chip Restaurant chain. The 1923-24 season was one of the wettest on record and being far from their fan base in Charlton it meant that attendances were very poor throughout the season. Added to this, the concrete pylons supporting the stands began to slide into the mud taking a bankrupt Harry Isaacs with them, and The Addicks back to The Valley the next season. The Dartmouth Arms continued as a pub until only a few years ago - The building has now been converted into flats.
yes, but the first bidders could walk away if delayed too long!
I'm not stating an opinion one way or the other on the Charlton situation.
However due diligence can be a two way thing. The potential purchaser wants to assure himself that he would actually receive in reality what purports to be on offer but equally the vendor needs to know that the proposed purchaser is good for the potential offer.
Don't the Bank and the previous directors also have a right of veto?
Not sure they do Kap - my understanding (or possibly misunderstanding) is that the previous owners have no rights other than their right to a return of capital upon certain events including the club being promoted to the Prem or on sale.
More to the point I can imagine that Dicky and Co are only really interested in their payment and from who is a secondary concern a long way removed from their primary concern. As I say, it's business and big business with big numbers too.
As you say they have the right to the return of their capital on a sale, so if that doesn't form part of the arrangement they do have a veto. The bank debt will be paid eventually in any event, so a purchaser might take a view about that. The directors' loans are otherwise contingent on promotion, so I guess it depends how much money the bidder has and how confident they are of securing promotion whether they'd pay it up front. Given they are interest-free loans, it's not obvious why you would do it.
Also the more likely the bidder is to get the team promoted the more likely the directors are to get their money in time and agree to roll over the loans. I don't think it's quite fair to imply that for all of them it's all about getting the money back at this stage. I give most of them a bit more credit than that, including RM.
I appreciate that the pre 2010 takeover owners may have personal feelings towards the club but as I mention it's business and a sizeable entitlement if the conditions are met and their main goal must be to do whatever is necessary to achieve the return of capital.
I didn't go tonight because of my slipped disc but a got a phone call from someone close to people at the club and he did confirm that the takeover was definitely happening and soon. Without going into specifics , which I can't - it's pretty good news.
yes, but the first bidders could walk away if delayed too long!
I'm not stating an opinion one way or the other on the Charlton situation.
However due diligence can be a two way thing. The potential purchaser wants to assure himself that he would actually receive in reality what purports to be on offer but equally the vendor needs to know that the proposed purchaser is good for the potential offer.
Don't the Bank and the previous directors also have a right of veto?
Not sure they do Kap - my understanding (or possibly misunderstanding) is that the previous owners have no rights other than their right to a return of capital upon certain events including the club being promoted to the Prem or on sale.
More to the point I can imagine that Dicky and Co are only really interested in their payment and from who is a secondary concern a long way removed from their primary concern. As I say, it's business and big business with big numbers too.
As you say they have the right to the return of their capital on a sale, so if that doesn't form part of the arrangement they do have a veto. The bank debt will be paid eventually in any event, so a purchaser might take a view about that. The directors' loans are otherwise contingent on promotion, so I guess it depends how much money the bidder has and how confident they are of securing promotion whether they'd pay it up front. Given they are interest-free loans, it's not obvious why you would do it.
Also the more likely the bidder is to get the team promoted the more likely the directors are to get their money in time and agree to roll over the loans. I don't think it's quite fair to imply that for all of them it's all about getting the money back at this stage. I give most of them a bit more credit than that, including RM.
I appreciate that the pre 2010 takeover owners may have personal feelings towards the club but as I mention it's business and a sizeable entitlement if the conditions are met and their main goal must be to do whatever is necessary to achieve the return of capital.
You're making an assumption and one that others who know that parties involved have already disputed here.
I didn't go tonight because of my slipped disc but a got a phone call from someone close to people at the club and he did confirm that the takeover was definitely happening and soon. Without going into specifics , which I can't - it's pretty good news.
Wow, Beds ! That sounds very promising - hope it cheered you up.
So where does Catford (The Mount) fit in here - as a matter of interest?
The Site of the 6th Ground : The Mount Stadium (1923-1924) Charlton stayed at The Valley until 1923, when the club moved to The Mount stadium in Catford as part of a proposed merger with Catford Southend Football Club to create a larger team with bigger support. The team wore the colours of "The Enders", light and dark blue vertical stripes. However, the move fell through and the Addicks returned to the Charlton area in 1924, returning to the traditional red and white colours in the process.
The Mount was a football stadium in Catford, (but not to be confused with Catford Stadium which you will find elsewhere on this website) located in the SW corner of Mountsfield Park. Catford South End F.C. (founded before 1914) developed the part of the park into a proper stadium with terracing. The Mount was unusual as it was elevated above the surrounding area and the reason for its name.
The position of The Mount was a contrast to The Valley, which was sunken ground that was originally a chalk pit. The Mount was a more modest stadium, holding roughly 50,000 compared to The Valley's 75,000, and had an appearance like a fort owing to concrete pylons having to be raised to support the terraces which were erected on sloping ground (down hill). Despite being the largest ground in the world at the time apart from the newly completed Wembley Stadium, Charlton Athletic F.C. decided to move to The Mount for the 1923-24 season as they failed to fill The Valley with supporters. The move to The Mount and the construction works to improve the terracing were almost entirely funded by Harry Isaacs, owner of The Dartmouth Arms in Laleham Road adjacent to the park, who was a passionate racing and football fan and son of Sam Isaacs, founder of the UK's first table service Fish & Chip Restaurant chain. The 1923-24 season was one of the wettest on record and being far from their fan base in Charlton it meant that attendances were very poor throughout the season. Added to this, the concrete pylons supporting the stands began to slide into the mud taking a bankrupt Harry Isaacs with them, and The Addicks back to The Valley the next season. The Dartmouth Arms continued as a pub until only a few years ago - The building has now been converted into flats.
I don't know what the capacity of The Mount was - I doubt if it was 50,000 - but certainly The Valley held nothing like 75,000 at the time. The 1923 FA Cup run produced record crowds culminating in 42,000 against Bolton and as the newsreel footage and magistrates court records show The Valley could not cope. It was only once the team reached the First Division in 1936 that the major terraces were created.
The only difference is that they've added a sentence (at the end of the 5th paragraph):
"And a fan group, Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust, is trying to block or delay any sale of the ground".
Both articles mention Cathedral - the property company who have had a lease on the proposed 'stadium' site (Morden Wharf) since March 2012 (as I've posted before) - but don't mention that their plans at the moment don't include any kind of stadium but only "a 5,000 capacity indoor entertainment area and a 10,000 capacity outdoor events space" (so not exactly cutting edge investigative journalism).
"And a fan group, Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust, is trying to block or delay any sale of the ground".
I think this misunderstands and misrepresents the reasons for Asset of Community Value application from my perspective. I signed the petition, as I didn't want a developer selling the ground, turning a quick buck by selling it off for housing and running off with the money whilst Charlton gets shunted off to a dubious ground share arrangment with Ebbsfleet, West Ham United or Millwall (this is for an instance) or some other dodgy arrangement that does not promote the stability of the club.
Owning the ground roots the club. I am not a luddite or adverse to change, but want to be reassured that any change of ground arrangements is positive and progressive for the club. The ACV helps to establish the principle of the club in the area, and supporting ACV does not for me prevent me supporting a development on the peninsula. The community asset is the presence of the club and ground in the local area and the excellent community work that the club does in the borough. ACV identifies Charlton Athletic and the supporters as stakeholders in the local area, with views that need to be included and respected as part of a local development plan that the Council and developers consider.
I know that for some that they never want to leave the Valley and I respect that position, but thats not for me. For the person that wrote that 'the Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust, is trying to block or delay any sale of the ground' misses the context of why that might happen. I would support blocking or delaying the sale of the ground if the terms of the sale meant that the club was being seriously disadvantaged by the sale or being taken by a bunch of sharks.
I am ready for the club to grow, develop and change and will respond positively if the arrangements for the club are positive.
I am not expert enough to understand whether another set up other than owning the ground is a good idea but my feeling that owning the ground is better unless someone can explain how it might work and how the rent may not adversely affect Financial Fair Play or be subject to a rent hike that evicts the club from its home.
New reasonable and respectable owners that communicate with the fan base have nothing to fear from the Trust or from ACV. If anything I feel ACV enhances a stadium bid on the peninsula. The Supporters Trust are a positive force at Charlton. Greenwich Council should be looking to accept ACV for the Valley and show respect to Charlton Athletic club for the positive values and contributions it brings to the borough to increase social cohesion. This includes reducing knife crime, tackling discrimination and racism, and promoting involvement with sport and social inclusion with excellent projects such as the Charlton upbeats.
yes, but the first bidders could walk away if delayed too long!
I'm not stating an opinion one way or the other on the Charlton situation.
However due diligence can be a two way thing. The potential purchaser wants to assure himself that he would actually receive in reality what purports to be on offer but equally the vendor needs to know that the proposed purchaser is good for the potential offer.
Don't the Bank and the previous directors also have a right of veto?
Not sure they do Kap - my understanding (or possibly misunderstanding) is that the previous owners have no rights other than their right to a return of capital upon certain events including the club being promoted to the Prem or on sale.
More to the point I can imagine that Dicky and Co are only really interested in their payment and from who is a secondary concern a long way removed from their primary concern. As I say, it's business and big business with big numbers too.
As you say they have the right to the return of their capital on a sale, so if that doesn't form part of the arrangement they do have a veto. The bank debt will be paid eventually in any event, so a purchaser might take a view about that. The directors' loans are otherwise contingent on promotion, so I guess it depends how much money the bidder has and how confident they are of securing promotion whether they'd pay it up front. Given they are interest-free loans, it's not obvious why you would do it.
Also the more likely the bidder is to get the team promoted the more likely the directors are to get their money in time and agree to roll over the loans. I don't think it's quite fair to imply that for all of them it's all about getting the money back at this stage. I give most of them a bit more credit than that, including RM.
I appreciate that the pre 2010 takeover owners may have personal feelings towards the club but as I mention it's business and a sizeable entitlement if the conditions are met and their main goal must be to do whatever is necessary to achieve the return of capital.
You're making an assumption and one that others who know that parties involved have already disputed here.
That's their's and my privilege isn't it - I do not have personal knowledge of the gentlemen concerned but I offer the opinion based on an interest in human behavioural science.
yes, but the first bidders could walk away if delayed too long!
I'm not stating an opinion one way or the other on the Charlton situation.
However due diligence can be a two way thing. The potential purchaser wants to assure himself that he would actually receive in reality what purports to be on offer but equally the vendor needs to know that the proposed purchaser is good for the potential offer.
Don't the Bank and the previous directors also have a right of veto?
Not sure they do Kap - my understanding (or possibly misunderstanding) is that the previous owners have no rights other than their right to a return of capital upon certain events including the club being promoted to the Prem or on sale.
More to the point I can imagine that Dicky and Co are only really interested in their payment and from who is a secondary concern a long way removed from their primary concern. As I say, it's business and big business with big numbers too.
As you say they have the right to the return of their capital on a sale, so if that doesn't form part of the arrangement they do have a veto. The bank debt will be paid eventually in any event, so a purchaser might take a view about that. The directors' loans are otherwise contingent on promotion, so I guess it depends how much money the bidder has and how confident they are of securing promotion whether they'd pay it up front. Given they are interest-free loans, it's not obvious why you would do it.
Also the more likely the bidder is to get the team promoted the more likely the directors are to get their money in time and agree to roll over the loans. I don't think it's quite fair to imply that for all of them it's all about getting the money back at this stage. I give most of them a bit more credit than that, including RM.
I appreciate that the pre 2010 takeover owners may have personal feelings towards the club but as I mention it's business and a sizeable entitlement if the conditions are met and their main goal must be to do whatever is necessary to achieve the return of capital.
You're making an assumption and one that others who know that parties involved have already disputed here.
That's their's and my privilege isn't it - I do not have personal knowledge of the gentlemen concerned but I offer the opinion based on an interest in human behavioural science.
Well I wonder how that "science" will explain the behaviour of Richard Murray and his fellow directors who joined in the 90s....
The only difference is that they've added a sentence (at the end of the 5th paragraph):
"And a fan group, Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust, is trying to block or delay any sale of the ground".
Both articles mention Cathedral - the property company who have had a lease on the proposed 'stadium' site (Morden Wharf) since March 2012 (as I've posted before) - but don't mention that their plans at the moment don't include any kind of stadium but only "a 5,000 capacity indoor entertainment area and a 10,000 capacity outdoor events space" (so not exactly cutting edge investigative journalism).
"And a fan group, Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust, is trying to block or delay any sale of the ground".
I think this misunderstands and misrepresents the reasons for Asset of Community Value application from my perspective. I signed the petition, as I didn't want a developer selling the ground, turning a quick buck by selling it off for housing and running off with the money whilst Charlton gets shunted off to a dubious ground share arrangment with Ebbsfleet, West Ham United or Millwall (this is for an instance) or some other dodgy arrangement that does not promote the stability of the club.
Owning the ground roots the club. I am not a luddite or adverse to change, but want to be reassured that any change of ground arrangements is positive and progressive for the club. The ACV helps to establish the principle of the club in the area, and supporting ACV does not for me prevent me supporting a development on the peninsula. The community asset is the presence of the club and ground in the local area and the excellent community work that the club does in the borough. ACV identifies Charlton Athletic and the supporters as stakeholders in the local area, with views that need to be included and respected as part of a local development plan that the Council and developers consider.
I know that for some that they never want to leave the Valley and I respect that position, but thats not for me. For the person that wrote that 'the Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust, is trying to block or delay any sale of the ground' misses the context of why that might happen. I would support blocking or delaying the sale of the ground if the terms of the sale meant that the club was being seriously disadvantaged by the sale or being taken by a bunch of sharks. Any respectable and reasonable owner of th e
I am ready for the club to grow, develop and change and will respond positively if the arrangements for the club are positive.
I am not expert enough to understand whether another set up other than owning the ground is a good idea but my feeling that owning the ground is better unless someone can explain how it might work and how the rent may not adversely affect Financial Fair Play or be subject to a rent hike that evicts the club from its home.
New reasonable and respectable owners that communicate with the fan base have nothing to fear from the Trust or from ACV. If anything I feel ACV enhances a stadium bid on the peninsula. The Supporters Trust are a positive force at Charlton. Greenwich Council should be looking to accept ACV for the Valley and show respect to Charlton Athletic club for the positive force it brings to the borough.
I fully agree with this, AVC simply stops the fans from being disenfranchised. Anyone that has not joined CAST or signed should do so and soon!
Comments
"And a fan group, Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust, is trying to block or delay any sale of the ground".
Both articles mention Cathedral - the property company who have had a lease on the proposed 'stadium' site (Morden Wharf) since March 2012 (as I've posted before) - but don't mention that their plans at the moment don't include any kind of stadium but only "a 5,000 capacity indoor entertainment area and a 10,000 capacity outdoor events space" (so not exactly cutting edge investigative journalism).
http://www.cathedralgroup.com/current-projects/morden-wharf/#more-2783
http://christophersmithassociates.co.uk/?page_id=1021:
http://www.oma.eu/news/2013/oma-appointed-by-cathedral-group-and-development-securities-to-masterplan-morden-wharf-development-on-greenwich-peninsula
But what it does means (as I've also posted before) is that - unless Cathedral (or Development Securities) are our prospective new owners - there is probably only a limited time window for any new owners that wanted to move the club to negotiate with Cathedral (and the Council) to change their plans into something more suitable for use by a Championship/Premiership football club.
It also almost certainly means that any new stadium would be 'multi-purpose' - and be built by Cathedral, Development Securities, or some other property company - with Charlton as one of the tenants - and you only have to look at Coventry (and possibly West Ham in the future - who can't fill the Boleyn at the moment) to see how that could turn out.
"hopes it goes through soon so the club can move forward" SCP is very clever in the way he can say so much in with what at first glance appears a run of the mill statement.
2 hours ago
Quote
Post by angeldust on 2 hours ago
Deal all but tied up I am lead to believe.And a very good one for all concerned ,considering.
The Site of the 6th Ground : The Mount Stadium (1923-1924)
Charlton stayed at The Valley until 1923, when the club moved to The Mount stadium in Catford as part of a proposed merger with Catford Southend Football Club to create a larger team with bigger support. The team wore the colours of "The Enders", light and dark blue vertical stripes. However, the move fell through and the Addicks returned to the Charlton area in 1924, returning to the traditional red and white colours in the process.
The Mount was a football stadium in Catford, (but not to be confused with Catford Stadium which you will find elsewhere on this website) located in the SW corner of Mountsfield Park. Catford South End F.C. (founded before 1914) developed the part of the park into a proper stadium with terracing. The Mount was unusual as it was elevated above the surrounding area and the reason for its name.
The position of The Mount was a contrast to The Valley, which was sunken ground that was originally a chalk pit. The Mount was a more modest stadium, holding roughly 50,000 compared to The Valley's 75,000, and had an appearance like a fort owing to concrete pylons having to be raised to support the terraces which were erected on sloping ground (down hill). Despite being the largest ground in the world at the time apart from the newly completed Wembley Stadium, Charlton Athletic F.C. decided to move to The Mount for the 1923-24 season as they failed to fill The Valley with supporters. The move to The Mount and the construction works to improve the terracing were almost entirely funded by Harry Isaacs, owner of The Dartmouth Arms in Laleham Road adjacent to the park, who was a passionate racing and football fan and son of Sam Isaacs, founder of the UK's first table service Fish & Chip Restaurant chain. The 1923-24 season was one of the wettest on record and being far from their fan base in Charlton it meant that attendances were very poor throughout the season. Added to this, the concrete pylons supporting the stands began to slide into the mud taking a bankrupt Harry Isaacs with them, and The Addicks back to The Valley the next season. The Dartmouth Arms continued as a pub until only a few years ago - The building has now been converted into flats.
Without going into specifics , which I can't - it's pretty good news.
Slipped discs do have an upside after all !
Thank you, very much.
One thing is for sure....it's looking German!
I think this misunderstands and misrepresents the reasons for Asset of Community Value application from my perspective. I signed the petition, as I didn't want a developer selling the ground, turning a quick buck by selling it off for housing and running off with the money whilst Charlton gets shunted off to a dubious ground share arrangment with Ebbsfleet, West Ham United or Millwall (this is for an instance) or some other dodgy arrangement that does not promote the stability of the club.
Owning the ground roots the club. I am not a luddite or adverse to change, but want to be reassured that any change of ground arrangements is positive and progressive for the club. The ACV helps to establish the principle of the club in the area, and supporting ACV does not for me prevent me supporting a development on the peninsula. The community asset is the presence of the club and ground in the local area and the excellent community work that the club does in the borough. ACV identifies Charlton Athletic and the supporters as stakeholders in the local area, with views that need to be included and respected as part of a local development plan that the Council and developers consider.
I know that for some that they never want to leave the Valley and I respect that position, but thats not for me. For the person that wrote that 'the Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust, is trying to block or delay any sale of the ground' misses the context of why that might happen. I would support blocking or delaying the sale of the ground if the terms of the sale meant that the club was being seriously disadvantaged by the sale or being taken by a bunch of sharks.
I am ready for the club to grow, develop and change and will respond positively if the arrangements for the club are positive.
I am not expert enough to understand whether another set up other than owning the ground is a good idea but my feeling that owning the ground is better unless someone can explain how it might work and how the rent may not adversely affect Financial Fair Play or be subject to a rent hike that evicts the club from its home.
New reasonable and respectable owners that communicate with the fan base have nothing to fear from the Trust or from ACV. If anything I feel ACV enhances a stadium bid on the peninsula. The Supporters Trust are a positive force at Charlton. Greenwich Council should be looking to accept ACV for the Valley and show respect to Charlton Athletic club for the positive values and contributions it brings to the borough to increase social cohesion. This includes reducing knife crime, tackling discrimination and racism, and promoting involvement with sport and social inclusion with excellent projects such as the Charlton upbeats.