Granting ACV is very good. ACV is a backstop, if an owner (Derek the shark) tried to recover debts owed from the club by selling the Valley, or just to run off into the sunset with the proceeds - with a result or proposal that Charlton ground shares or merges with Crystal Palace, Millwall, West Ham or Ebbsfleet.
In this instance it would allow a small amount of time for Charlton fans to look at ensuring that the club remains in the area by having an option on attempting to stay at the Valley.
As a Trust member (speaking for myself) and having signed the petition, I am not adverse to change that allows Charlton to grow and prosper. I am happy to support a move to the Peninsula. ACV is only there for the hopefully unlikely scenario where we have a very unscrupulous or financially corrupt or inept owner that causes Charlton to be displaced from the ground.
Decent owners who communicate with the Charlton fan base have nothing to fear from ACV (or the Supporters Trust).
Granting ACV is very good. ACV is a backstop, if an owner (Derek the shark) tried to recover debts owed from the club by selling the Valley, or just to run off into the sunset with the proceeds - with a result or proposal that Charlton ground shares or merges with Crystal Palace, Millwall, West Ham or Ebbsfleet.
In this instance it would allow a small amount of time for Charlton fans to look at ensuring that the club remains in the area by having an option on attempting to stay at the Valley.
As a Trust member (speaking for myself) and having signed the petition, I am not adverse to change that allows Charlton to grow. I am happy to support a move to the Peninsula. ACV is only there for the hopefully unlikely scenario where we have a very unscrupulous or financially corrupt or inept owner that causes Charlton to be displaced from the ground.
Decent owners who communicate with the Charlton fan base have nothing to fear from ACV (or the Supporters Trust).
If it were Arabs we would have a small few who would dress with tea towels on their heads. Today does that mean we will see stars and stripes flags or hear people shouting USA USA
If it were Arabs we would have a small few who would dress with tea towels on their heads. Today does that mean we will see stars and stripes flags or hear people shouting USA USA
If it were Arabs we would have a small few who would dress with tea towels on their heads. Today does that mean we will see stars and stripes flags or hear people shouting USA USA
Ok seeing as we are about to secure world domination with a new ground,new owners and a new name - Charlton Redsox Cowboys ;-) we need a new song lads I give you -
Valley O2 The pissed rolling in off the trains You can't drive It's restricted parking At Valley O2
I've started it off, but it's out to anyone else I'm sure there are plenty on here who can improve it and take it on from this :-)
Ok seeing as we are about to secure world domination with a new ground,new owners and a new name - Charlton Redsox Cowboys ;-) we need a new song lads I give you -
Valley O2 The pissed rolling in off the trains You can't drive It's restricted parking At Valley O2
I've started it off, but it's out to anyone else I'm sure there are plenty on here who can improve it and take it on from this :-)
Sorry, but the best thing about moving to a new stadium is that we will hopefully never hear that tune again.
Granting ACV is very good. ACV is a backstop, if an owner (Derek the shark) tried to recover debts owed from the club by selling the Valley, or just to run off into the sunset with the proceeds - with a result or proposal that Charlton ground shares or merges with Crystal Palace, Millwall, West Ham or Ebbsfleet.
In this instance it would allow a small amount of time for Charlton fans to look at ensuring that the club remains in the area by having an option on attempting to stay at the Valley.
As a Trust member (speaking for myself) and having signed the petition, I am not adverse to change that allows Charlton to grow and prosper. I am happy to support a move to the Peninsula. ACV is only there for the hopefully unlikely scenario where we have a very unscrupulous or financially corrupt or inept owner that causes Charlton to be displaced from the ground.
Decent owners who communicate with the Charlton fan base have nothing to fear from ACV (or the Supporters Trust).
Granting ACV is very good. ACV is a backstop, if an owner (Derek the shark) tried to recover debts owed from the club by selling the Valley, or just to run off into the sunset with the proceeds - with a result or proposal that Charlton ground shares or merges with Crystal Palace, Millwall, West Ham or Ebbsfleet.
In this instance it would allow a small amount of time for Charlton fans to look at ensuring that the club remains in the area by having an option on attempting to stay at the Valley.
As a Trust member (speaking for myself) and having signed the petition, I am not adverse to change that allows Charlton to grow. I am happy to support a move to the Peninsula. ACV is only there for the hopefully unlikely scenario where we have a very unscrupulous or financially corrupt or inept owner that causes Charlton to be displaced from the ground.
Decent owners who communicate with the Charlton fan base have nothing to fear from ACV (or the Supporters Trust).
This 100%
And 100% from me too! a logical and well thought response to a number of scare mongering posts. The club and ALL supporters should be as one in wanting what is best for club and if it's the best for the club now and in the future then it's good for us and any future supporters.
Bernie, you are doing a great job mate. It is a difficult line to walk, and it is not possible to keep everyone happy all the time or to be perfect. ACV is very good and great achievement in a short space of time.
On ACV there was a heated discussion at the Trust board about the timing and how / when to consult the club before the application was submitted. In the end the Trust delayed the application to consult with the club. This was last summer. When we did announce it the club immediately backed the application with a statement from the Chairman.....Hopefully this kills the argument that ACV is detrimental to a sale of the club.
As time wore on the Trust started to receive information about takeovers, moves from the Valley and alleged stitch ups re RBG. But when you look at the logic of the process it is an admin decision which for some reason was taking too long. So we prepared for the worst thinking that at least there are elections next year!
One of the Trust board established that the deadline for tabling questions to the council is 11th December so someone was on the brink of drafting legalese for WTF is going on when we got the nod that something might happen this week.
And my point is? We took the time to research the options and deliver a result. We quietly researched whether ACV might have any adverse impact on a takeover and found the answer to be a "no" - as shown by board sponsorship of the initial application. None of us are trained journalists or political operators but we try at all times to demonstrate a collective responsibility to the Trust, its membership and ultimately the club we all support.
Thanks for that seriously_red, I intended no slur on the Trust, it's members or it's actions (whom I fully support).
However, were I were a potential purchaser, AVC status would be a Risk if I intend a move away from the Valley because it protects the ground (and rightly so in my opinion) and puts it's status in the hands of the supporters. It could also add to costs because any move would need to meet the approval of supporters and that would take time and effort. It could and would be a good and positive thing should the club be bought by someone with genuine intentions of long term improvement because straight away it would put supporters and club in common cause.
Of course it was just a whiskey driven suspicion as I mention above but there is some logic behind it. In the long run of things it wont matter either way anyhow.
As an aside it might be worth while visiting the ITV site and breaking bread with those I mentioned above, I'm sure it's just a misunderstanding.
"It could also add to costs because any move would need to meet the approval of supporters"
Why is there so much misunderstanding of the ACV? No move away from The Valley would require the approval of supporters. All that would happen is that the owners would be obliged to inform RGB in advance, and they in turn the Trust. That's it.
ACV does not go so far as to "put its status in the hands of supporters". What it does is ensure that if the owner intends to sell the Valley, it has to tell GC, and GC have to tell the public. Then we would have six weeks to lodge an interest as a potential buyer, and a further four and a half months to get our bid together. The important aspect, to answer your concern is this:
The Community Right to Bid is not designed to force landowners wishing to sell to do so to some person or organisation they do not wish to sell to, nor will it force them to sell at an inferior price. There is no restriction on the freedom of landowners to sell to whomever they choose after the six months have expired and there is no right of first refusal for community interest groups. In fact the owner can sell the asset for less than the community bid if they wish, which is one of the weaknesses of the act.
So since this is widely known to any potential buyer, I don't think anyone can seriously claim it is a deal breaker.
It's well worth reading Supporters Direct on the whole thing, not least to see how many grounds, including some big iconic ones, are already listed as ACV. The way things are going, I'd guess there will be 40 ACV grounds within two years, and many of them will be clubs which would be attractive purchases.
I think there has been some misunderstanding of ACV and why it is there. It is definitely to support the stability and security of the club and protect the ground from sharks.
Charlton Athletic football club is more than just bricks and mortar at the Valley. It is all the supporters, directors, owners and the community schemes and encouragement for sports participation that make Charlton a positive force and contributor to life in the Borough. From my understanding ACV further reminds Greenwich LBL of that. If anything it will enhance the inclusion of a sports stadium on the peninsula.
I love the Valley and its home but I am prepared to move if Charlton Athletic club's interests are secured, in a new stadium. What the story is with any of the prospective new owners is not clear yet. I hope they are decent and would want to communicate well with the fan / customer base. That would make good business sense.
Got to get ready to get to the match. 3 points would be a perfect today.
"It could also add to costs because any move would need to meet the approval of supporters"
Why is there so much misunderstanding of the ACV? No move away from The Valley would require the approval of supporters. All that would happen is that the owners would be obliged to inform RGB in advance, and they in turn the Trust. That's it.
Sheer ignorance.
Enough information has been posted - on here and elsewhere - about what the ACV means, so it's easy for people to find out for themselves and not just take the likes of Razil's word for it.
But people would rather trot out their own ill-conceived (and pre-conceived) ideas about stuff like this just because they like slagging things off. Particularly, it would seem, if there is any connection whatsoever with Charlton Life.
I personally have some doubts about its value, but I commend those who have got off their arses and are trying to do something positive for the benefit of OUR club - and therefore us all - ratjer than just sit there slagging others off and contributing NOTHING positive towards OUR club.
Granting ACV is very good. ACV is a backstop, if an owner (Derek the shark) tried to recover debts owed from the club by selling the Valley, or just to run off into the sunset with the proceeds - with a result or proposal that Charlton ground shares or merges with Crystal Palace, Millwall, West Ham or Ebbsfleet.
In this instance it would allow a small amount of time for Charlton fans to look at ensuring that the club remains in the area by having an option on attempting to stay at the Valley.
As a Trust member (speaking for myself) and having signed the petition, I am not adverse to change that allows Charlton to grow and prosper. I am happy to support a move to the Peninsula. ACV is only there for the hopefully unlikely scenario where we have a very unscrupulous or financially corrupt or inept owner that causes Charlton to be displaced from the ground.
Decent owners who communicate with the Charlton fan base have nothing to fear from ACV (or the Supporters Trust).
Posting without reading the whole of the thread - can't be arsed with bickering/semantics- I just want to make a couple of points.
1. Due diligence, I have personally done any number of these over the years, both as an advisor and vendor. It is a fact finding exercise and not the be all and end all. Once DD is completed a report is made - generally nothing is found which is outside the statutory information available. It is more to do with warranties and indemnities to clarify what any purchaser is letting themselves in for.
2. Wages. So wages were late(ish). As an employer in 20 years I have paid people late 3 times once my fault (forgot to run payroll) and twice due to bank/ official error. (Sh) it happens.
3. Airman brown. As an ex senior employee I am sure that over the years he had many disagreements regarding how the business was was run. I often have arguments with my partners which can get heated we are however all trying to advance the business. He may now have a separate agenda - I don't know and frankly don't care. I can assure you however that his thoughts expressed on a fans forum will carry no more weight than those of Reams or Nathan Prior! If they do then MS and TJ are not the hard noses they appear to be. Basically cut the man some slack.
Comments
In this instance it would allow a small amount of time for Charlton fans to look at ensuring that the club remains in the area by having an option on attempting to stay at the Valley.
As a Trust member (speaking for myself) and having signed the petition, I am not adverse to change that allows Charlton to grow and prosper. I am happy to support a move to the Peninsula. ACV is only there for the hopefully unlikely scenario where we have a very unscrupulous or financially corrupt or inept owner that causes Charlton to be displaced from the ground.
Decent owners who communicate with the Charlton fan base have nothing to fear from ACV (or the Supporters Trust).
Valley O2
The pissed rolling in off the trains
You can't drive
It's restricted parking
At Valley O2
I've started it off, but it's out to anyone else I'm sure there are plenty on here who can improve it and take it on from this :-)
(Still hate the phrase 'tells it like it is' though.)
However, were I were a potential purchaser, AVC status would be a Risk if I intend a move away from the Valley because it protects the ground (and rightly so in my opinion) and puts it's status in the hands of the supporters. It could also add to costs because any move would need to meet the approval of supporters and that would take time and effort. It could and would be a good and positive thing should the club be bought by someone with genuine intentions of long term improvement because straight away it would put supporters and club in common cause.
Of course it was just a whiskey driven suspicion as I mention above but there is some logic behind it. In the long run of things it wont matter either way anyhow.
As an aside it might be worth while visiting the ITV site and breaking bread with those I mentioned above, I'm sure it's just a misunderstanding.
Why is there so much misunderstanding of the ACV? No move away from The Valley would require the approval of supporters. All that would happen is that the owners would be obliged to inform RGB in advance, and they in turn the Trust. That's it.
ACV does not go so far as to "put its status in the hands of supporters". What it does is ensure that if the owner intends to sell the Valley, it has to tell GC, and GC have to tell the public. Then we would have six weeks to lodge an interest as a potential buyer, and a further four and a half months to get our bid together. The important aspect, to answer your concern is this:
The Community Right to Bid is not designed to force landowners wishing to sell to do so to some person or organisation they do not wish to sell to, nor will it force them to sell at an inferior price. There is no restriction on the freedom of landowners to sell to whomever they choose after the six months have expired and there is no right of first refusal for community interest groups. In fact the owner can sell the asset for less than the community bid if they wish, which is one of the weaknesses of the act.
So since this is widely known to any potential buyer, I don't think anyone can seriously claim it is a deal breaker.
It's well worth reading Supporters Direct on the whole thing, not least to see how many grounds, including some big iconic ones, are already listed as ACV. The way things are going, I'd guess there will be 40 ACV grounds within two years, and many of them will be clubs which would be attractive purchases.
Charlton Athletic football club is more than just bricks and mortar at the Valley. It is all the supporters, directors, owners and the community schemes and encouragement for sports participation that make Charlton a positive force and contributor to life in the Borough. From my understanding ACV further reminds Greenwich LBL of that. If anything it will enhance the inclusion of a sports stadium on the peninsula.
I love the Valley and its home but I am prepared to move if Charlton Athletic club's interests are secured, in a new stadium. What the story is with any of the prospective new owners is not clear yet. I hope they are decent and would want to communicate well with the fan / customer base. That would make good business sense.
Got to get ready to get to the match. 3 points would be a perfect today.
Enough information has been posted - on here and elsewhere - about what the ACV means, so it's easy for people to find out for themselves and not just take the likes of Razil's word for it.
But people would rather trot out their own ill-conceived (and pre-conceived) ideas about stuff like this just because they like slagging things off. Particularly, it would seem, if there is any connection whatsoever with Charlton Life.
I personally have some doubts about its value, but I commend those who have got off their arses and are trying to do something positive for the benefit of OUR club - and therefore us all - ratjer than just sit there slagging others off and contributing NOTHING positive towards OUR club.
1. Due diligence, I have personally done any number of these over the years, both as an advisor and vendor. It is a fact finding exercise and not the be all and end all. Once DD is completed a report is made - generally nothing is found which is outside the statutory information available. It is more to do with warranties and indemnities to clarify what any purchaser is letting themselves in for.
2. Wages. So wages were late(ish). As an employer in 20 years I have paid people late 3 times once my fault (forgot to run payroll) and twice due to bank/ official error. (Sh) it happens.
3. Airman brown. As an ex senior employee I am sure that over the years he had many disagreements regarding how the business was was run. I often have arguments with my partners which can get heated we are however all trying to advance the business. He may now have a separate agenda - I don't know and frankly don't care. I can assure you however that his thoughts expressed on a fans forum will carry no more weight than those of Reams or Nathan Prior! If they do then MS and TJ are not the hard noses they appear to be. Basically cut the man some slack.
Rant over- COYR