I voted for ACV and still think it was the sensible thing to have done. All the hard work by Razil and the Trust is to protect our valley and CAFC. I in no way believe that it scuppered the bid by Harris as his legal team and money would have coped with it. Two things: I am very suspicious of why Greenwich awarded ACV when they did - the timing seemed very contrived to me, why? Also, as Henry said, why do buyers keep pulling out after due diligence? But Chris and the boys need us more than ever against a resurgent Derby!
It seems to me even more so this morning that the ACV is one of the more positive things to come out in recent Charlton related times. It has flushed out a portion of the shenanigans in as much as it looks as if a move from the Valley was a big selling point to prospective investors. So at least we know a little more about where we stand. The Daily Mail story if true is amazing, we were trying to sell something we didn't own, maybe fogged by local politicians, to Americans who turn out not to be the mug punters the duplicitious assumed.
No but 9 times out of 10 if someone hands me a bit of paper outside a ground it goes straight in a bin, Twitter how many of our ageing support use twitter, sorry razil, I would hedge my bets that many of our ageing fanbase aint got a clue. I've got a mate few years older than me , more die hard not missed a home game for 20 odd years. He aint got a feckin clue what CL is or twitter or facebook. Don't presume everyone does. Be it ignorant I originally expressed a interest in the trust, and receive regular emails, I am a little ashamed to say it, I dont even open them, they come through to my work email and are deleted straight away as I dont have time to read them.
this is spot on, my old man wouldn't know the internet if it was put in front of him - bet he knows nothing about the ACV either
Seems like lots of ducking and diving has cost the club a real chance of progression. Lets hope now that whoever the money men/man are/is at least trys to back CP in the transfer window and give the man a fighting chance of keeping us in this league. Also,get the out of contract players/management signed up ffs because we all know the probable consequences if we dont
So as i understand it tj/slater are trying to sell the club with add ons i.e land on pennisular that could potentially be used as a new football stadium which is not owned by us but as it is available makes the valley worth more,and the americans have pulled out coz potentially sainsburys/tesco/whoever could purchase the land the day after they bought the valley,av i got that right???
Raz, I in no way want to degenerate what you are doing. However you don't necessary speak for the majority of Charlton fans. My parents have not missed a home game for ages. They no nothing of the Trust. They live in East Sussex, don't use the net, don't listen to local radio obviously, are not a member of a Supporters Group, wouldn't have a clue what twitter is etc etc. The two people who sit in front of us likewise. I come up on Valley Express and people ask me what is going on with certain things. I also hear other talking on the coach who also have no clue about what is going on about a great many things. I think that actually our fan base is quite old and the above is not isolated in that fan base but actually quite widespread.
So no I don't ignore facts that don't suit my view but it seems you quite likely are ignoring great swaths of our fanbase. I'm quite sure you could arrange for each coach to have copies of your magazine on board for each traveller to have a copy etc etc, hand out leaflets at turnstiles other than those at the North Stand.
As said I'm not against what you are doing at all but I don't think you can in any way say you speak for the majority of Charlton fans as a great many know nothing about you at all.
So, Large, what's your agenda here? You knew about the ACV but you didn't bother discussing this with your parents who you knew were Charlton supporters? You didn't bother asking them whether they thought the Trust was a good idea or whether they were joining? I find this difficult to believe - don't you speak to your parents ever?
To suggest the Trust and the successful ACV application was in some way responsible for Harris pulling out is laughable. It would take more than 6 months just to design a new stadium - let alone build it - and then you'd have to find a buyer for the Valley - not necessarily easy given its previous with toxic ground issues.
How could they ever think they'd get away with claiming to own something they clearly don't? It's going to get discovered at some point....
Don't believe everything you read in the papers and even less in the Mail. I am not saying the Mail story is wrong but the evidence does not stack up, if we were claiming ownership surely it would have come up in the leaked prospectus or been leaked through Airmans sleuths. Maybe this is a leak from the withdrawing parties or a misinterpretation or just lies by the Mail.
That's exactly what did come out in the leaked prospectus.
Correct me if I am wrong, Henry, but I don't think the prospectus went so far as to say we owned land there.
We know that back in 2010 the Club tried to lure buyers with indications that a there was a deal to be done at the Pen, with help from RBG, but this is the first time I have ever heard it suggested that 'we" already own land there.
FWIW I think the Mail guy just didnt listen properly to his source.
How could they ever think they'd get away with claiming to own something they clearly don't? It's going to get discovered at some point....
Don't believe everything you read in the papers and even less in the Mail. I am not saying the Mail story is wrong but the evidence does not stack up, if we were claiming ownership surely it would have come up in the leaked prospectus or been leaked through Airmans sleuths. Maybe this is a leak from the withdrawing parties or a misinterpretation or just lies by the Mail.
That's exactly what did come out in the leaked prospectus.
FWIW I think the Mail guy just didnt listen properly to his source.
You should have put it in an email not a phone call :-)
My Dad is aware of the trust but not the ACV. His only knowledge of the Trust is from Razil being rather drunk and, with all due respect, taking a little too long to talk about it, when we went to see Richard Murray at the Bromley Supporters meeting a few months ago.
My Dad is 72, computer literate, an intelligent bloke (all be it not at his peak any more) and dedicated Charlton fan since he first went when he was 8. I talk to him more than once a week and we travel to and from games together. We have plenty to talk about, I never run out of conversation and I have never brought the trust or the ACV.
As it happens I don't have a problem with the ACV but I, personally, think it is useless as a tool to stop us moving from The Valley. I think the only tangible benefit from the ACV is that it, for a short period, increased the media attention on the Trust and helped to forge a bond between it and the club. Well, let's be honest, the bond is between the Trust and Richard Murray, something that was never a hard sell as there is no doubt that Richard is a dedicated fan first and foremost.
I am, also, in the camp that believes that the timing of the granting of the ACV was inconvenient, at best. I can't believe that any potential purchaser would be encouraged by having a customer base that would, potentially, look to dictate major business planning. I don't think the Americans have the same association with their sporting stadia that we have. Even if they have no intention of moving the clubs home, it is a very significant statement that the fans have got the local authority to put some kind of protection on the business's most valuable asset - even if the protection provides absolutely no protection at all.
I also think, as has been said already, that the animosity we have towards the board could well scare off any new buyers. I'm not sure I would want to buy a business where the customer base hate those that run it, even though they have plowed millions and millions of pounds of their money into it!
Charlton’s claim to own land on the Greenwich peninsular near the O2 Arena is said to be an issue.
--
Why would the club (TJ / MS) claim to own land on the Greenwich peninsular near the 02 arena if they don't ffs ? (Assuming that the above quote has any validity ?)
This is what Due Diligence is for, I guess to identify any owner bullshit.
Like the fact the prospectus unearthed by The Voice claimed future transfer income included possible add ons from the sale of McGinty to Man Utd despite the fact he had already been sacked by Utd, contract cancelled and we would not get another penny. Can't conceive that TJ is that stupid but looks the case. The land issue doesn't surprise me and explains a lot.
So back in the real world the comments above about a massive sale of players in January would seem to be the most likely next happening. Along with contracts being allowed to run out, and next season with a cheap and desperate manager and rookie players. Yes I know that would mean relegation but we would be moving in the direction of trying to break even, which to me would be a good thing in as much as we supporters would not be tarting ourselves out to a sugar daddy. Here comes financial reality, and the only game in town may end up as the Supporters Trust. Unless the trust naysayers have loads of dosh squirrelled away of course.
My Dad is aware of the trust but not the ACV. His only knowledge of the Trust is from Razil being rather drunk and, with all due respect, taking a little too long to talk about it, when we went to see Richard Murray at the Bromley Supporters meeting a few months ago.
My Dad is 72, computer literate, an intelligent bloke (all be it not at his peak any more) and dedicated Charlton fan since he first went when he was 8. I talk to him more than once a week and we travel to and from games together. We have plenty to talk about, I never run out of conversation and I have never brought the trust or the ACV.
As it happens I don't have a problem with the ACV but I, personally, think it is useless as a tool to stop us moving from The Valley. I think the only tangible benefit from the ACV is that it, for a short period, increased the media attention on the Trust and helped to forge a bond between it and the club. Well, let's be honest, the bond is between the Trust and Richard Murray, something that was never a hard sell as there is no doubt that Richard is a dedicated fan first and foremost.
I am, also, in the camp that believes that the timing of the granting of the ACV was inconvenient, at best. I can't believe that any potential purchaser would be encouraged by having a customer base that would, potentially, look to dictate major business planning. I don't think the Americans have the same association with their sporting stadia that we have. Even if they have no intention of moving the clubs home, it is a very significant statement that the fans have got the local authority to put some kind of protection on the business's most valuable asset - even if the protection provides absolutely no protection at all.
I also think, as has been said already, that the animosity we have towards the board could well scare off any new buyers. I'm not sure I would want to buy a business where the customer base hate those that run it, even though they have plowed millions and millions of pounds of their money into it!
How could they ever think they'd get away with claiming to own something they clearly don't? It's going to get discovered at some point....
Don't believe everything you read in the papers and even less in the Mail. I am not saying the Mail story is wrong but the evidence does not stack up, if we were claiming ownership surely it would have come up in the leaked prospectus or been leaked through Airmans sleuths. Maybe this is a leak from the withdrawing parties or a misinterpretation or just lies by the Mail.
That's exactly what did come out in the leaked prospectus.
Correct me if I am wrong, Henry, but I don't think the prospectus went so far as to say we owned land there.
We know that back in 2010 the Club tried to lure buyers with indications that a there was a deal to be done at the Pen, with help from RBG, but this is the first time I have ever heard it suggested that 'we" already own land there.
FWIW I think the Mail guy just didnt listen properly to his source.
I think that's right, but it still bothers me as to why Roberts was so closely involved. Was it just his role to delay the ACV in case it caused any confusion in the Yank camp? I can see that it would have taken a couple of days to work out that the ACV would have no effect on the purchase, but that doesn't of itself seem enough to me, but maybe their desperation makes fools of us all. However, they knew the deal had fallen through then, miraculously, the ACV was very belatedly granted.
'Hi Chris, could we have a quiet word in the boardroom, the thing is with selling the club I might just need your help with something, to smooth the passage as it were. Could be a drink in it'
This is a fictional speech, completely made up by me.
Raz, I in no way want to degenerate what you are doing. However you don't necessary speak for the majority of Charlton fans. My parents have not missed a home game for ages. They no nothing of the Trust. They live in East Sussex, don't use the net, don't listen to local radio obviously, are not a member of a Supporters Group, wouldn't have a clue what twitter is etc etc. The two people who sit in front of us likewise. I come up on Valley Express and people ask me what is going on with certain things. I also hear other talking on the coach who also have no clue about what is going on about a great many things. I think that actually our fan base is quite old and the above is not isolated in that fan base but actually quite widespread.
So no I don't ignore facts that don't suit my view but it seems you quite likely are ignoring great swaths of our fanbase. I'm quite sure you could arrange for each coach to have copies of your magazine on board for each traveller to have a copy etc etc, hand out leaflets at turnstiles other than those at the North Stand.
As said I'm not against what you are doing at all but I don't think you can in any way say you speak for the majority of Charlton fans as a great many know nothing about you at all.
So, Large, what's your agenda here? You knew about the ACV but you didn't bother discussing this with your parents who you knew were Charlton supporters? You didn't bother asking them whether they thought the Trust was a good idea or whether they were joining? I find this difficult to believe - don't you speak to your parents ever?
To suggest the Trust and the successful ACV application was in some way responsible for Harris pulling out is laughable. It would take more than 6 months just to design a new stadium - let alone build it - and then you'd have to find a buyer for the Valley - not necessarily easy given its previous with toxic ground issues.
My agenda? LOL. I speak to my parents every other day, I travel to each and evey home game by coach with them. Of course I have mentioned both the Trust and the ACV. If I hadn't though they would have known nothing about it. I wait for the coach at Battle and speak to a chap aged about 60. He gets on the coach, gets off at Charlton, to the Oak, to the game, then back on the coach (invariably depressed) and all he knows of the trust is what I have told him. I have no agenda. I have already stated that I am not anti trust. Can I not point out that in my opinion the Trust is not yet reaching the masses without it being construed as a dig?
My Dad is aware of the trust but not the ACV. His only knowledge of the Trust is from Razil being rather drunk and, with all due respect, taking a little too long to talk about it, when we went to see Richard Murray at the Bromley Supporters meeting a few months ago.
My Dad is 72, computer literate, an intelligent bloke (all be it not at his peak any more) and dedicated Charlton fan since he first went when he was 8. I talk to him more than once a week and we travel to and from games together. We have plenty to talk about, I never run out of conversation and I have never brought the trust or the ACV.
As it happens I don't have a problem with the ACV but I, personally, think it is useless as a tool to stop us moving from The Valley. I think the only tangible benefit from the ACV is that it, for a short period, increased the media attention on the Trust and helped to forge a bond between it and the club. Well, let's be honest, the bond is between the Trust and Richard Murray, something that was never a hard sell as there is no doubt that Richard is a dedicated fan first and foremost.
I am, also, in the camp that believes that the timing of the granting of the ACV was inconvenient, at best. I can't believe that any potential purchaser would be encouraged by having a customer base that would, potentially, look to dictate major business planning. I don't think the Americans have the same association with their sporting stadia that we have. Even if they have no intention of moving the clubs home, it is a very significant statement that the fans have got the local authority to put some kind of protection on the business's most valuable asset - even if the protection provides absolutely no protection at all.
I also think, as has been said already, that the animosity we have towards the board could well scare off any new buyers. I'm not sure I would want to buy a business where the customer base hate those that run it, even though they have plowed millions and millions of pounds of their money into it!
Unprepared, nervous, incoherent yes, drunk no
I don't think ACV had any impact on the relationship between the Trust and the Board or Murray, that had been established prior.
I do agree that ACV has focussed the Trust, and given it something tangible (although limited I agree) to campaign on, it fits very well with giving fans a voice, and helps give an example of what Trusts can achieve - for all the right reasons in my view. It also allow the Trust to show it is committed to a careful approach, and shows it is not automatically anti board, but rather pro the interest of the club in the way we approached the application, and liaised with the Board.
If the club owned land near the O2, they would have sold it! Maybe the takeover relied on the O2 land being offered on favourable terms which in the end was not favourable enough for the buyers. As Yoda said, or was it Airman, who said- there is another! Does anybody have any information about them?
step forward any sensible,reasonable,rational business man who would offer 18 million for our club
frankly id say its worth about 10 but price dropping all the time
It will be worth less in Div 1 which is where we could be heading. Sometimes with the best will in the world you have to cut your losses and take the hit.
I am with what addickted said imo its all just a game of poker between players whom none have really good hands , sooner or later the patience will run out and the player with the strongest hand will win, if I was TJ or MS I would know this is not me and I am not going to win
How could they ever think they'd get away with claiming to own something they clearly don't? It's going to get discovered at some point....
Don't believe everything you read in the papers and even less in the Mail. I am not saying the Mail story is wrong but the evidence does not stack up, if we were claiming ownership surely it would have come up in the leaked prospectus or been leaked through Airmans sleuths. Maybe this is a leak from the withdrawing parties or a misinterpretation or just lies by the Mail.
That's exactly what did come out in the leaked prospectus.
Correct me if I am wrong, Henry, but I don't think the prospectus went so far as to say we owned land there.
We know that back in 2010 the Club tried to lure buyers with indications that a there was a deal to be done at the Pen, with help from RBG, but this is the first time I have ever heard it suggested that 'we" already own land there.
FWIW I think the Mail guy just didnt listen properly to his source.
I think that's right, but it still bothers me as to why Roberts was so closely involved. Was it just his role to delay the ACV in case it caused any confusion in the Yank camp? I can see that it would have taken a couple of days to work out that the ACV would have no effect on the purchase, but that doesn't of itself seem enough to me, but maybe their desperation makes fools of us all. However, they knew the deal had fallen through then, miraculously, the ACV was very belatedly granted.
The main problem I have with this conspiracy theory other than my personal view that most delays and conspiracies are down to f'ups, is that it might affect any other bid. Also there were 5 applications being held back not just ours. Not only that there was no approach to us during the period, and given that we originally delayed our application a few weeks in the first place - after consultation - you would think there might have been.
My Dad is aware of the trust but not the ACV. His only knowledge of the Trust is from Razil being rather drunk and, with all due respect, taking a little too long to talk about it, when we went to see Richard Murray at the Bromley Supporters meeting a few months ago.
My Dad is 72, computer literate, an intelligent bloke (all be it not at his peak any more) and dedicated Charlton fan since he first went when he was 8. I talk to him more than once a week and we travel to and from games together. We have plenty to talk about, I never run out of conversation and I have never brought the trust or the ACV.
As it happens I don't have a problem with the ACV but I, personally, think it is useless as a tool to stop us moving from The Valley. I think the only tangible benefit from the ACV is that it, for a short period, increased the media attention on the Trust and helped to forge a bond between it and the club. Well, let's be honest, the bond is between the Trust and Richard Murray, something that was never a hard sell as there is no doubt that Richard is a dedicated fan first and foremost.
I am, also, in the camp that believes that the timing of the granting of the ACV was inconvenient, at best. I can't believe that any potential purchaser would be encouraged by having a customer base that would, potentially, look to dictate major business planning. I don't think the Americans have the same association with their sporting stadia that we have. Even if they have no intention of moving the clubs home, it is a very significant statement that the fans have got the local authority to put some kind of protection on the business's most valuable asset - even if the protection provides absolutely no protection at all.
I also think, as has been said already, that the animosity we have towards the board could well scare off any new buyers. I'm not sure I would want to buy a business where the customer base hate those that run it, even though they have plowed millions and millions of pounds of their money into it!
Unprepared, nervous, incoherent yes, drunk no
My apologies. I got the impression that you had had a few.
I am with what addickted said imo its all just a game of poker between players whom none have really good hands , sooner or later the patience will run out and the player with the strongest hand will win, if I was TJ or MS I would know this is not me and I am not going to win
Egos have a habit of messing with one's logic and common sense!
Quality stuff all this trust bashing.....all those having a pop about the publicising of the ACV, I don't see a single suggestion of how things could have been done better or a single offer of help.
Are people seriously moaning at a group who have set a trust up - where previous attempts have failed - and put in god knows how many hours keeping it going, whilst at the same time holding down jobs and having families?
If it were me @razil I'd resign and allow one ofthe dissenters to take over - just don't get trampled in the rush.
Comments
Two things: I am very suspicious of why Greenwich awarded ACV when they did - the timing seemed very contrived to me, why? Also, as Henry said, why do buyers keep pulling out after due diligence?
But Chris and the boys need us more than ever against a resurgent Derby!
You do get the feeling that whoever is doing the selling isn't very professional to say the least.
Dale Stephens for £2m anyone?
Expect to see a lot of our decent players leaving in January at rock bottom prices!
To suggest the Trust and the successful ACV application was in some way responsible for Harris pulling out is laughable.
It would take more than 6 months just to design a new stadium - let alone build it - and then you'd have to find a buyer for the Valley - not necessarily easy given its previous with toxic ground issues.
We know that back in 2010 the Club tried to lure buyers with indications that a there was a deal to be done at the Pen, with help from RBG, but this is the first time I have ever heard it suggested that 'we" already own land there.
FWIW I think the Mail guy just didnt listen properly to his source.
#lessonslearned
My Dad is 72, computer literate, an intelligent bloke (all be it not at his peak any more) and dedicated Charlton fan since he first went when he was 8. I talk to him more than once a week and we travel to and from games together. We have plenty to talk about, I never run out of conversation and I have never brought the trust or the ACV.
As it happens I don't have a problem with the ACV but I, personally, think it is useless as a tool to stop us moving from The Valley. I think the only tangible benefit from the ACV is that it, for a short period, increased the media attention on the Trust and helped to forge a bond between it and the club. Well, let's be honest, the bond is between the Trust and Richard Murray, something that was never a hard sell as there is no doubt that Richard is a dedicated fan first and foremost.
I am, also, in the camp that believes that the timing of the granting of the ACV was inconvenient, at best. I can't believe that any potential purchaser would be encouraged by having a customer base that would, potentially, look to dictate major business planning. I don't think the Americans have the same association with their sporting stadia that we have. Even if they have no intention of moving the clubs home, it is a very significant statement that the fans have got the local authority to put some kind of protection on the business's most valuable asset - even if the protection provides absolutely no protection at all.
I also think, as has been said already, that the animosity we have towards the board could well scare off any new buyers. I'm not sure I would want to buy a business where the customer base hate those that run it, even though they have plowed millions and millions of pounds of their money into it!
frankly id say its worth about 10 but price dropping all the time
Yes I know that would mean relegation but we would be moving in the direction of trying to break even, which to me would be a good thing in as much as we supporters would not be tarting ourselves out to a sugar daddy.
Here comes financial reality, and the only game in town may end up as the Supporters Trust. Unless the trust naysayers have loads of dosh squirrelled away of course.
This is a fictional speech, completely made up by me.
I do agree that ACV has focussed the Trust, and given it something tangible (although limited I agree) to campaign on, it fits very well with giving fans a voice, and helps give an example of what Trusts can achieve - for all the right reasons in my view. It also allow the Trust to show it is committed to a careful approach, and shows it is not automatically anti board, but rather pro the interest of the club in the way we approached the application, and liaised with the Board.
I don't rule it out though of course.
Are people seriously moaning at a group who have set a trust up - where previous attempts have failed - and put in god knows how many hours keeping it going, whilst at the same time holding down jobs and having families?
If it were me @razil I'd resign and allow one ofthe dissenters to take over - just don't get trampled in the rush.