Ok So we would be advised of any sale proposals of the valley but that is all that this seems to give the trust. not much point in the trust buying the valley when the club are playing down the road in their new stadium.
Ok So we would be advised of any sale proposals of the valley but that is all that this seems to give the trust. not much point in the trust buying the valley when the club are playing down the road in their new stadium.
It's not our plan to buy the stadium. It's our plan, if the occasion arises, to have a full and frank consultation with the supporter base. What happens next depends on the outcome of those conversations.
Before Friday there was no onus on anyone to advise us "of any sale proposal" - you could simply have arrived at the Valley and received "a message to our supporters" type leaflets. ACV limits the possibility of that happening to the pretty unlikely scenario that the team is moved to a new stadium that has been secretly built without the Valley being put up for sale.
I think a lot of this is down to confusion and maybe that is my fault - it was my responsibility to write the FAQs for ACV back in July. Either I didn't do a good enough job or people haven't read them - but to be clear;
a) ACV doesn't stop the Valley ever being sold b) ACV doesn't mean that the Trust will buy the Valley (honestly, unless there is a catastrophic property crash in South East London I highly doubt we could afford it) c) ACV isn't an effective mechanism in all circumstances. Like all legislation it is open to interpretation and is a very new law so will take a while to fully clarify exactly how far reaching it's power is d) ACV doesn't mean the Trust are against the possibility of Charlton ever moving from the Valley - simply that the fans should have as much forewarning as possible and that we then have the opportunity for discussion of the proposed business case - the outcome of that discussion, in my opinion, should form the way forward
ACV wasn't designed specifically to protect football stadiums. No such legislation exists. We, however, have chosen to make use of the tools available to us to give our fans a greater say in the running of their club and whilst there are plenty of holes to be picked in the ACV legislation I think that's exactly what a supporters trust should be doing and I sincerely hope our members agree and I hope prospective members can see the sort of work we want to do.
As an aside yesterday was a really successful day on our humble stall outside the Covered End, lots of people came up to congratulate us on the ACV decision and we got around 25 new member which is really positive. On the downside it was bloody freezing on that stall !!
@se9addick : for what it's worth I think you (personally and The Trust in general ) have been pretty clear and consistent throughout with the information you have been putting out there - not to mention the links to other places so people don't have to take your word for it but can do as much or as little of their own research as they want.
If people don't want to read it then that's fine. But I find all of the sniping and slagging off from those either to lazy to read or too ignorant to understand a bit much to be honest. That's not to say everyone who disagrees with the ACV approach is lazy or ignorant, but it's clear some people are throwing comments around without an understanding of the whole concept - but that's not your fault.
@se9addick : for what it's worth I think you (personally and The Trust in general ) have been pretty clear and consistent throughout with the information you have been putting out there - not to mention the links to other places so people don't have to take your word for it but can do as much or as little of their own research as they want.
If people don't want to read it then that's fine. But I find all of the sniping and slagging off from those either to lazy to read or too ignorant to understand a bit much to be honest. That's not to say everyone who disagrees with the ACV approach is lazy or ignorant, but it's clear some people are throwing comments around without an understanding of the whole concept - but that's not your fault.
Cheers, it can be exhausting sometimes. I find it hard to understand why any legitimate Charlton supporter if they truly understood what ACV does (and doesn't do) would be against it. You might be apathetic towards it, sure, but actually being against it doesn't seem to make much sense to me - but each to their own.
I think that the Trust has done a very good job of trying to tease out and explain the issues in a clear way and are obviously trying to answer questions as they arise. But there remain quite a few supporters who don't know what an ACV is or what it does. It takes time, but you are doing well.
The current legislation to the best of my knowledge, and I was one of the original people on the trust that went down to the RBG to discuss this in the early summer does not stop any current or new owner from moving from the Valley, after the appropriate consultation period. Nor does it make the current owners have to accept an offer. As the other trust members have already posted, IF a move was to take place, where, when and how and I am sure would be discussed with the widest possible consultation with fans. A decision like this would not be decided by the trust executive, I would have one vote, for the one share that I have as everybody else has. I believe as a personal philosophy, that if you are a chairman of a football club you do at times have to make very difficult choices, but they are choices that you need to consult your supporters on. A move from the valley is one such decision. Anyway off the the Valley now to celebrate the 21st year of returning to it, and the new museum, another reason for wanting to stay at the Valley?
The current legislation to the best of my knowledge, and I was one of the original people on the trust that went down to the RBG to discuss this in the early summer does not stop any current or new owner from moving from the Valley, after the appropriate consultation period. Nor does it make the current owners have to accept an offer. As the other trust members have already posted, IF a move was to take place, where, when and how and I am sure would be discussed with the widest possible consultation with fans. A decision like this would not be decided by the trust executive, I would have one vote, for the one share that I have as everybody else has. I believe as a personal philosophy, that if you are a chairman of a football club you do at times have to make very difficult choices, but they are choices that you need to consult your supporters on. A move from the valley is one such decision. Anyway off the the Valley now to celebrate the 21st year of returning to it, and the new museum, another reason for wanting to stay at the Valley?
so the answer to my question, so far as I understand from your response Ken, is 'yes', new owners would be restricted in what they can do so far as the valley is concerned, at least for the next five years. This will suit the diehard valleyists and probably dismay those who would not be averse to a move away from the valley at some time in the future
The current legislation to the best of my knowledge, and I was one of the original people on the trust that went down to the RBG to discuss this in the early summer does not stop any current or new owner from moving from the Valley, after the appropriate consultation period. Nor does it make the current owners have to accept an offer. As the other trust members have already posted, IF a move was to take place, where, when and how and I am sure would be discussed with the widest possible consultation with fans. A decision like this would not be decided by the trust executive, I would have one vote, for the one share that I have as everybody else has. I believe as a personal philosophy, that if you are a chairman of a football club you do at times have to make very difficult choices, but they are choices that you need to consult your supporters on. A move from the valley is one such decision. Anyway off the the Valley now to celebrate the 21st year of returning to it, and the new museum, another reason for wanting to stay at the Valley?
so the answer to my question, so far as I understand from your response Ken, is 'yes', new owners would be restricted in what they can do so far as the valley is concerned, at least for the next five years. This will suit the diehard valleyists and probably dismay those who would not be averse to a move away from the valley at some time in the future
Then you've mis-understood.
Again - and I'm not sure how many times I can write this - ACV does not stop the owners of the Valley doing what they want, only that they tell us before they do it.
This doesn't suit "Valleyists" whatever that might be, it suits Charlton fans who think they should at least have some advanced warning of what happens to their home.
The current legislation to the best of my knowledge, and I was one of the original people on the trust that went down to the RBG to discuss this in the early summer does not stop any current or new owner from moving from the Valley, after the appropriate consultation period. Nor does it make the current owners have to accept an offer. As the other trust members have already posted, IF a move was to take place, where, when and how and I am sure would be discussed with the widest possible consultation with fans. A decision like this would not be decided by the trust executive, I would have one vote, for the one share that I have as everybody else has. I believe as a personal philosophy, that if you are a chairman of a football club you do at times have to make very difficult choices, but they are choices that you need to consult your supporters on. A move from the valley is one such decision. Anyway off the the Valley now to celebrate the 21st year of returning to it, and the new museum, another reason for wanting to stay at the Valley?
so the answer to my question, so far as I understand from your response Ken, is 'yes', new owners would be restricted in what they can do so far as the valley is concerned, at least for the next five years. This will suit the diehard valleyists and probably dismay those who would not be averse to a move away from the valley at some time in the future
I can't for the life of me understand why this is so difficult to grasp. Various people have already spent aeons of time explaining it. No, the ACV does not stop the owners of the Valley doing what they want. They are just required to give 6 months notice before actually doing it. At the end of which they can, if they so choose, sell it to whom so ever they like. The 6 month period just gives other parties the time to put together an alternative bid, which the owners can totally ignore if they want to.
The current legislation to the best of my knowledge, and I was one of the original people on the trust that went down to the RBG to discuss this in the early summer does not stop any current or new owner from moving from the Valley, after the appropriate consultation period. Nor does it make the current owners have to accept an offer. As the other trust members have already posted, IF a move was to take place, where, when and how and I am sure would be discussed with the widest possible consultation with fans. A decision like this would not be decided by the trust executive, I would have one vote, for the one share that I have as everybody else has. I believe as a personal philosophy, that if you are a chairman of a football club you do at times have to make very difficult choices, but they are choices that you need to consult your supporters on. A move from the valley is one such decision. Anyway off the the Valley now to celebrate the 21st year of returning to it, and the new museum, another reason for wanting to stay at the Valley?
so the answer to my question, so far as I understand from your response Ken, is 'yes', new owners would be restricted in what they can do so far as the valley is concerned, at least for the next five years. This will suit the diehard valleyists and probably dismay those who would not be averse to a move away from the valley at some time in the future
I can't for the life of me understand why this is so difficult to grasp. Various people have already spent aeons of time explaining it. No, the ACV does not stop the owners of the Valley doing what they want. They are just required to give 6 months notice before actually doing it. At the end of which they can, if they so choose, sell it to whichever party they like. The 6 month period just gives other parties the time to put together an alternative bid, which the owners can totally ignore if they want to.
thanks for the answer RED FACED PETE and SE9 and DICK PLUMB .. so IN FACT, new owners ARE restricted as to what they can do in that they must give notice, consult with a group of fans and stand still for six months (or is it 5 years?) if and when a move from the valley is required .. to say that an ACV has NO EFFECT is, to quote one of you, THICK and STUPID, if the ACV was ineffective, why bother to apply for it? .. to use an analogy .. (I hope you are not all too obtuse or thick to grasp this), if I were to buy a property with a view to selling it straight away and there was the equivalent of an ACV on it, it would RESTRICT my ability to do WHAT I WANTED WHEN I WANTED for a period of at leastsix months. To my mind therefore, any sort of restriction or impediment to buying a business or property would make it less desirable than it would be if there were no such restrictions. Now tell me that I am wrong ....
IMO, Valley supporters are, from what I can glean, adopting a 'if we have to move to survive, then so be it' stance. If that turns out to be the majority view, then CAFTrust will merely reflect supporter's opinions. Their own personal opinions will not hold sway in these circumstances. It's just a holding position which will allow individual supporters the opportunity to assess what is going on and reach an informed view . As I see it, it will afford a valuable opportunity to stop the owners ( whoever they happen to be at the time) from selling us down the river merely to line their pockets. In the past we have had directors who were also supporters. That no longer applies so the ACV acts as an insurance policy. But if, for example, a majority of supporters want to move, then that is what will happen. The difficulty, as I foresee it, will lie in deciding, in these rather extreme circumstances, who counts as a supporter and why. Is it Trust members, S/T holders, people who have attended 51% of home games or people who have attended away games? These are problems that lie in the future, but for now, the Trust has ensured we will get a say in our own future, and for that they are to be applauded.
I still think there is confusion and the comments from Ken and from se9addick, I'm afraid, do nothing to alleviate that confusion. The ACV, as already stated, does not stop the owners from doing what they want, but neither does it ensure that the Trust or any supporter, needs to be consulted if the owners move the club to a new site. The ACV only relates to The Valley and it's use. I know it's very unlikely but the owners may decide to move the club and leave the valley empty and not alter it's use at all, in this scenario CAFC moves and we could still end up receiving "A message to our supporters". As I've said it's very unlikely, but I do think we should all understand that the ACV does not necessarily mean that the fans will be consulted in the event of a move. I'm happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood.
I still think there is confusion and the comments from Ken and from se9addick, I'm afraid, do nothing to alleviate that confusion. The ACV, as already stated, does not stop the owners from doing what they want, but neither does it ensure that the Trust or any supporter, needs to be consulted if the owners move the club to a new site. The ACV only relates to The Valley and it's use. I know it's very unlikely but the owners may decide to move the club and leave the valley empty and not alter it's use at all, in this scenario CAFC moves and we could still end up receiving "A message to our supporters". As I've said it's very unlikely, but I do think we should all understand that the ACV does not necessarily mean that the fans will be consulted in the event of a move. I'm happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood.
I'm not sure how there's still confusion - read this post;
Ok So we would be advised of any sale proposals of the valley but that is all that this seems to give the trust. not much point in the trust buying the valley when the club are playing down the road in their new stadium.
It's not our plan to buy the stadium. It's our plan, if the occasion arises, to have a full and frank consultation with the supporter base. What happens next depends on the outcome of those conversations.
Before Friday there was no onus on anyone to advise us "of any sale proposal" - you could simply have arrived at the Valley and received "a message to our supporters" type leaflets. ACV limits the possibility of that happening to the pretty unlikely scenario that the team is moved to a new stadium that has been secretly built without the Valley being put up for sale.
I think a lot of this is down to confusion and maybe that is my fault - it was my responsibility to write the FAQs for ACV back in July. Either I didn't do a good enough job or people haven't read them - but to be clear;
a) ACV doesn't stop the Valley ever being sold b) ACV doesn't mean that the Trust will buy the Valley (honestly, unless there is a catastrophic property crash in South East London I highly doubt we could afford it) c) ACV isn't an effective mechanism in all circumstances. Like all legislation it is open to interpretation and is a very new law so will take a while to fully clarify exactly how far reaching it's power is d) ACV doesn't mean the Trust are against the possibility of Charlton ever moving from the Valley - simply that the fans should have as much forewarning as possible and that we then have the opportunity for discussion of the proposed business case - the outcome of that discussion, in my opinion, should form the way forward
ACV wasn't designed specifically to protect football stadiums. No such legislation exists. We, however, have chosen to make use of the tools available to us to give our fans a greater say in the running of their club and whilst there are plenty of holes to be picked in the ACV legislation I think that's exactly what a supporters trust should be doing and I sincerely hope our members agree and I hope prospective members can see the sort of work we want to do.
As an aside yesterday was a really successful day on our humble stall outside the Covered End, lots of people came up to congratulate us on the ACV decision and we got around 25 new member which is really positive. On the downside it was bloody freezing on that stall !!
The current legislation to the best of my knowledge, and I was one of the original people on the trust that went down to the RBG to discuss this in the early summer does not stop any current or new owner from moving from the Valley, after the appropriate consultation period. Nor does it make the current owners have to accept an offer. As the other trust members have already posted, IF a move was to take place, where, when and how and I am sure would be discussed with the widest possible consultation with fans. A decision like this would not be decided by the trust executive, I would have one vote, for the one share that I have as everybody else has. I believe as a personal philosophy, that if you are a chairman of a football club you do at times have to make very difficult choices, but they are choices that you need to consult your supporters on. A move from the valley is one such decision. Anyway off the the Valley now to celebrate the 21st year of returning to it, and the new museum, another reason for wanting to stay at the Valley?
so the answer to my question, so far as I understand from your response Ken, is 'yes', new owners would be restricted in what they can do so far as the valley is concerned, at least for the next five years. This will suit the diehard valleyists and probably dismay those who would not be averse to a move away from the valley at some time in the future
I can't for the life of me understand why this is so difficult to grasp. Various people have already spent aeons of time explaining it. No, the ACV does not stop the owners of the Valley doing what they want. They are just required to give 6 months notice before actually doing it. At the end of which they can, if they so choose, sell it to whichever party they like. The 6 month period just gives other parties the time to put together an alternative bid, which the owners can totally ignore if they want to.
thanks for the answer RED FACED PETE and SE9 and DICK PLUMB .. so IN FACT, new owners ARE restricted as to what they can do in that they must give notice, consult with a group of fans and stand still for six months (or is it 5 years?) if and when a move from the valley is required .. to say that an ACV has NO EFFECT is, to quote one of you, THICK and STUPID, if the ACV was ineffective, why bother to apply for it? .. to use an analogy .. (I hope you are not all too obtuse or thick to grasp this), if I were to buy a property with a view to selling it straight away and there was the equivalent of an ACV on it, it would RESTRICT my ability to do WHAT I WANTED WHEN I WANTED for a period of at leastsix months. To my mind therefore, any sort of restriction or impediment to buying a business or property would make it less desirable than it would be if there were no such restrictions. Now tell me that I am wrong ....
Lincs, no business owner is going to want to move overnight are they? They will have to find / build somewhere to move to first won't they? All the ACV does is require that the owners give 6 months notice of their intention to sell. It will therefore have no real practical impact on any plans that the owners might have for selling the Valley, if that's what they want to do.
The current legislation to the best of my knowledge, and I was one of the original people on the trust that went down to the RBG to discuss this in the early summer does not stop any current or new owner from moving from the Valley, after the appropriate consultation period. Nor does it make the current owners have to accept an offer. As the other trust members have already posted, IF a move was to take place, where, when and how and I am sure would be discussed with the widest possible consultation with fans. A decision like this would not be decided by the trust executive, I would have one vote, for the one share that I have as everybody else has. I believe as a personal philosophy, that if you are a chairman of a football club you do at times have to make very difficult choices, but they are choices that you need to consult your supporters on. A move from the valley is one such decision. Anyway off the the Valley now to celebrate the 21st year of returning to it, and the new museum, another reason for wanting to stay at the Valley?
so the answer to my question, so far as I understand from your response Ken, is 'yes', new owners would be restricted in what they can do so far as the valley is concerned, at least for the next five years. This will suit the diehard valleyists and probably dismay those who would not be averse to a move away from the valley at some time in the future
I can't for the life of me understand why this is so difficult to grasp. Various people have already spent aeons of time explaining it. No, the ACV does not stop the owners of the Valley doing what they want. They are just required to give 6 months notice before actually doing it. At the end of which they can, if they so choose, sell it to whichever party they like. The 6 month period just gives other parties the time to put together an alternative bid, which the owners can totally ignore if they want to.
thanks for the answer RED FACED PETE and SE9 and DICK PLUMB .. so IN FACT, new owners ARE restricted as to what they can do in that they must give notice, consult with a group of fans and stand still for six months (or is it 5 years?) if and when a move from the valley is required .. to say that an ACV has NO EFFECT is, to quote one of you, THICK and STUPID, if the ACV was ineffective, why bother to apply for it? .. to use an analogy .. (I hope you are not all too obtuse or thick to grasp this), if I were to buy a property with a view to selling it straight away and there was the equivalent of an ACV on it, it would RESTRICT my ability to do WHAT I WANTED WHEN I WANTED for a period of at leastsix months. To my mind therefore, any sort of restriction or impediment to buying a business or property would make it less desirable than it would be if there were no such restrictions. Now tell me that I am wrong ....
Lincs, no business owner is going to want to move overnight are they? They will have to find / build somewhere to move to first won't they? All the ACV does is require that the owners give 6 months notice of their intention to sell. It will therefore have no real practical impact on any plans that the owners might have for selling the Valley.
Unless their only intention is making a quick buck by flogging the Valley and dumping the club - in which case if ACV puts them off then I'm glad !
I still think there is confusion and the comments from Ken and from se9addick, I'm afraid, do nothing to alleviate that confusion. The ACV, as already stated, does not stop the owners from doing what they want, but neither does it ensure that the Trust or any supporter, needs to be consulted if the owners move the club to a new site. The ACV only relates to The Valley and it's use. I know it's very unlikely but the owners may decide to move the club and leave the valley empty and not alter it's use at all, in this scenario CAFC moves and we could still end up receiving "A message to our supporters". As I've said it's very unlikely, but I do think we should all understand that the ACV does not necessarily mean that the fans will be consulted in the event of a move. I'm happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood.
I'm not sure how there's still confusion - read this post;
Ok So we would be advised of any sale proposals of the valley but that is all that this seems to give the trust. not much point in the trust buying the valley when the club are playing down the road in their new stadium.
It's not our plan to buy the stadium. It's our plan, if the occasion arises, to have a full and frank consultation with the supporter base. What happens next depends on the outcome of those conversations.
Before Friday there was no onus on anyone to advise us "of any sale proposal" - you could simply have arrived at the Valley and received "a message to our supporters" type leaflets. ACV limits the possibility of that happening to the pretty unlikely scenario that the team is moved to a new stadium that has been secretly built without the Valley being put up for sale.
I think a lot of this is down to confusion and maybe that is my fault - it was my responsibility to write the FAQs for ACV back in July. Either I didn't do a good enough job or people haven't read them - but to be clear;
a) ACV doesn't stop the Valley ever being sold b) ACV doesn't mean that the Trust will buy the Valley (honestly, unless there is a catastrophic property crash in South East London I highly doubt we could afford it) c) ACV isn't an effective mechanism in all circumstances. Like all legislation it is open to interpretation and is a very new law so will take a while to fully clarify exactly how far reaching it's power is d) ACV doesn't mean the Trust are against the possibility of Charlton ever moving from the Valley - simply that the fans should have as much forewarning as possible and that we then have the opportunity for discussion of the proposed business case - the outcome of that discussion, in my opinion, should form the way forward
ACV wasn't designed specifically to protect football stadiums. No such legislation exists. We, however, have chosen to make use of the tools available to us to give our fans a greater say in the running of their club and whilst there are plenty of holes to be picked in the ACV legislation I think that's exactly what a supporters trust should be doing and I sincerely hope our members agree and I hope prospective members can see the sort of work we want to do.
As an aside yesterday was a really successful day on our humble stall outside the Covered End, lots of people came up to congratulate us on the ACV decision and we got around 25 new member which is really positive. On the downside it was bloody freezing on that stall !!
Surely that makes the matter pretty clear ?
Apologies - I misread the second sentence in your second paragraph. As I said, I'm happy to be corrected, and consider myself so.
The current legislation to the best of my knowledge, and I was one of the original people on the trust that went down to the RBG to discuss this in the early summer does not stop any current or new owner from moving from the Valley, after the appropriate consultation period. Nor does it make the current owners have to accept an offer. As the other trust members have already posted, IF a move was to take place, where, when and how and I am sure would be discussed with the widest possible consultation with fans. A decision like this would not be decided by the trust executive, I would have one vote, for the one share that I have as everybody else has. I believe as a personal philosophy, that if you are a chairman of a football club you do at times have to make very difficult choices, but they are choices that you need to consult your supporters on. A move from the valley is one such decision. Anyway off the the Valley now to celebrate the 21st year of returning to it, and the new museum, another reason for wanting to stay at the Valley?
so the answer to my question, so far as I understand from your response Ken, is 'yes', new owners would be restricted in what they can do so far as the valley is concerned, at least for the next five years. This will suit the diehard valleyists and probably dismay those who would not be averse to a move away from the valley at some time in the future
I can't for the life of me understand why this is so difficult to grasp. Various people have already spent aeons of time explaining it. No, the ACV does not stop the owners of the Valley doing what they want. They are just required to give 6 months notice before actually doing it. At the end of which they can, if they so choose, sell it to whichever party they like. The 6 month period just gives other parties the time to put together an alternative bid, which the owners can totally ignore if they want to.
thanks for the answer RED FACED PETE and SE9 and DICK PLUMB .. so IN FACT, new owners ARE restricted as to what they can do in that they must give notice, consult with a group of fans and stand still for six months (or is it 5 years?) if and when a move from the valley is required .. to say that an ACV has NO EFFECT is, to quote one of you, THICK and STUPID, if the ACV was ineffective, why bother to apply for it? .. to use an analogy .. (I hope you are not all too obtuse or thick to grasp this), if I were to buy a property with a view to selling it straight away and there was the equivalent of an ACV on it, it would RESTRICT my ability to do WHAT I WANTED WHEN I WANTED for a period of at leastsix months. To my mind therefore, any sort of restriction or impediment to buying a business or property would make it less desirable than it would be if there were no such restrictions. Now tell me that I am wrong ....
Lincs, no business owner is going to want to move overnight are they? They will have to find / build somewhere to move to first won't they? All the ACV does is require that the owners give 6 months notice of their intention to sell. It will therefore have no real practical impact on any plans that the owners might have for selling the Valley.
I refer you to my original question. I appreciate your reasoned answer. However, IF it were me preparing to spend millions on any business (football club or nightclub or any sort of club or otherwise), I would have a very concrete idea of what I would be doing with my purchase FROM THE OUTSET. To my mind, obtuse, thick or otherwise, any outside restrictions on my doing what I wanted with my expensive purchase, the equivalent of the legal 'restrictive covenant' would be a disincentive to buy said business. That was my question. And MY conclusion, perhaps a wrong one, is that during this time when takeover/buyout fever is in the CAFC/CL air, an ACV could well be a disincentive to any potential buyer. I take on board though what you say about the more, shall we say, patient potential buyer
The current legislation to the best of my knowledge, and I was one of the original people on the trust that went down to the RBG to discuss this in the early summer does not stop any current or new owner from moving from the Valley, after the appropriate consultation period. Nor does it make the current owners have to accept an offer. As the other trust members have already posted, IF a move was to take place, where, when and how and I am sure would be discussed with the widest possible consultation with fans. A decision like this would not be decided by the trust executive, I would have one vote, for the one share that I have as everybody else has. I believe as a personal philosophy, that if you are a chairman of a football club you do at times have to make very difficult choices, but they are choices that you need to consult your supporters on. A move from the valley is one such decision. Anyway off the the Valley now to celebrate the 21st year of returning to it, and the new museum, another reason for wanting to stay at the Valley?
so the answer to my question, so far as I understand from your response Ken, is 'yes', new owners would be restricted in what they can do so far as the valley is concerned, at least for the next five years. This will suit the diehard valleyists and probably dismay those who would not be averse to a move away from the valley at some time in the future
I can't for the life of me understand why this is so difficult to grasp. Various people have already spent aeons of time explaining it. No, the ACV does not stop the owners of the Valley doing what they want. They are just required to give 6 months notice before actually doing it. At the end of which they can, if they so choose, sell it to whichever party they like. The 6 month period just gives other parties the time to put together an alternative bid, which the owners can totally ignore if they want to.
thanks for the answer RED FACED PETE and SE9 and DICK PLUMB .. so IN FACT, new owners ARE restricted as to what they can do in that they must give notice, consult with a group of fans and stand still for six months (or is it 5 years?) if and when a move from the valley is required .. to say that an ACV has NO EFFECT is, to quote one of you, THICK and STUPID, if the ACV was ineffective, why bother to apply for it? .. to use an analogy .. (I hope you are not all too obtuse or thick to grasp this), if I were to buy a property with a view to selling it straight away and there was the equivalent of an ACV on it, it would RESTRICT my ability to do WHAT I WANTED WHEN I WANTED for a period of at leastsix months. To my mind therefore, any sort of restriction or impediment to buying a business or property would make it less desirable than it would be if there were no such restrictions. Now tell me that I am wrong ....
Lincs, no business owner is going to want to move overnight are they? They will have to find / build somewhere to move to first won't they? All the ACV does is require that the owners give 6 months notice of their intention to sell. It will therefore have no real practical impact on any plans that the owners might have for selling the Valley.
I refer you to my original question. I appreciate your reasoned answer. However, IF it were me preparing to spend millions on any business (football club or nightclub or any sort of club or otherwise), I would have a very concrete idea of what I would be doing with my purchase FROM THE OUTSET. To my mind, obtuse, thick or otherwise, any outside restrictions on my doing what I wanted with my expensive purchase, the equivalent of the legal 'restrictive covenant' would be a disincentive to buy said business. That was my question. And MY conclusion, perhaps a wrong one, is that during this time when takeover/buyout fever is in the CAFC/CL air, an ACV could well be a disincentive to any potential buyer. I take on board though what you say about the more, shall we say, patient potential buyer
The key fact, however, is that no alternative stadium for Charlton to play in actually exists. The time it might take to plan & build such a stadium will be far longer than 6 months. So the ACV really isn't a disincentive at all for any new buyer.
I still think there is confusion and the comments from Ken and from se9addick, I'm afraid, do nothing to alleviate that confusion. The ACV, as already stated, does not stop the owners from doing what they want, but neither does it ensure that the Trust or any supporter, needs to be consulted if the owners move the club to a new site. The ACV only relates to The Valley and it's use. I know it's very unlikely but the owners may decide to move the club and leave the valley empty and not alter it's use at all, in this scenario CAFC moves and we could still end up receiving "A message to our supporters". As I've said it's very unlikely, but I do think we should all understand that the ACV does not necessarily mean that the fans will be consulted in the event of a move. I'm happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood.
I'm not sure how there's still confusion - read this post;
Ok So we would be advised of any sale proposals of the valley but that is all that this seems to give the trust. not much point in the trust buying the valley when the club are playing down the road in their new stadium.
It's not our plan to buy the stadium. It's our plan, if the occasion arises, to have a full and frank consultation with the supporter base. What happens next depends on the outcome of those conversations.
Before Friday there was no onus on anyone to advise us "of any sale proposal" - you could simply have arrived at the Valley and received "a message to our supporters" type leaflets. ACV limits the possibility of that happening to the pretty unlikely scenario that the team is moved to a new stadium that has been secretly built without the Valley being put up for sale.
I think a lot of this is down to confusion and maybe that is my fault - it was my responsibility to write the FAQs for ACV back in July. Either I didn't do a good enough job or people haven't read them - but to be clear;
a) ACV doesn't stop the Valley ever being sold b) ACV doesn't mean that the Trust will buy the Valley (honestly, unless there is a catastrophic property crash in South East London I highly doubt we could afford it) c) ACV isn't an effective mechanism in all circumstances. Like all legislation it is open to interpretation and is a very new law so will take a while to fully clarify exactly how far reaching it's power is d) ACV doesn't mean the Trust are against the possibility of Charlton ever moving from the Valley - simply that the fans should have as much forewarning as possible and that we then have the opportunity for discussion of the proposed business case - the outcome of that discussion, in my opinion, should form the way forward
ACV wasn't designed specifically to protect football stadiums. No such legislation exists. We, however, have chosen to make use of the tools available to us to give our fans a greater say in the running of their club and whilst there are plenty of holes to be picked in the ACV legislation I think that's exactly what a supporters trust should be doing and I sincerely hope our members agree and I hope prospective members can see the sort of work we want to do.
As an aside yesterday was a really successful day on our humble stall outside the Covered End, lots of people came up to congratulate us on the ACV decision and we got around 25 new member which is really positive. On the downside it was bloody freezing on that stall !!
Surely that makes the matter pretty clear ?
Apologies - I misread the second sentence in your second paragraph. As I said, I'm happy to be corrected, and consider myself so.
The current legislation to the best of my knowledge, and I was one of the original people on the trust that went down to the RBG to discuss this in the early summer does not stop any current or new owner from moving from the Valley, after the appropriate consultation period. Nor does it make the current owners have to accept an offer. As the other trust members have already posted, IF a move was to take place, where, when and how and I am sure would be discussed with the widest possible consultation with fans. A decision like this would not be decided by the trust executive, I would have one vote, for the one share that I have as everybody else has. I believe as a personal philosophy, that if you are a chairman of a football club you do at times have to make very difficult choices, but they are choices that you need to consult your supporters on. A move from the valley is one such decision. Anyway off the the Valley now to celebrate the 21st year of returning to it, and the new museum, another reason for wanting to stay at the Valley?
so the answer to my question, so far as I understand from your response Ken, is 'yes', new owners would be restricted in what they can do so far as the valley is concerned, at least for the next five years. This will suit the diehard valleyists and probably dismay those who would not be averse to a move away from the valley at some time in the future
I can't for the life of me understand why this is so difficult to grasp. Various people have already spent aeons of time explaining it. No, the ACV does not stop the owners of the Valley doing what they want. They are just required to give 6 months notice before actually doing it. At the end of which they can, if they so choose, sell it to whichever party they like. The 6 month period just gives other parties the time to put together an alternative bid, which the owners can totally ignore if they want to.
thanks for the answer RED FACED PETE and SE9 and DICK PLUMB .. so IN FACT, new owners ARE restricted as to what they can do in that they must give notice, consult with a group of fans and stand still for six months (or is it 5 years?) if and when a move from the valley is required .. to say that an ACV has NO EFFECT is, to quote one of you, THICK and STUPID, if the ACV was ineffective, why bother to apply for it? .. to use an analogy .. (I hope you are not all too obtuse or thick to grasp this), if I were to buy a property with a view to selling it straight away and there was the equivalent of an ACV on it, it would RESTRICT my ability to do WHAT I WANTED WHEN I WANTED for a period of at leastsix months. To my mind therefore, any sort of restriction or impediment to buying a business or property would make it less desirable than it would be if there were no such restrictions. Now tell me that I am wrong ....
Lincs, no business owner is going to want to move overnight are they? They will have to find / build somewhere to move to first won't they? All the ACV does is require that the owners give 6 months notice of their intention to sell. It will therefore have no real practical impact on any plans that the owners might have for selling the Valley.
I refer you to my original question. I appreciate your reasoned answer. However, IF it were me preparing to spend millions on any business (football club or nightclub or any sort of club or otherwise), I would have a very concrete idea of what I would be doing with my purchase FROM THE OUTSET. To my mind, obtuse, thick or otherwise, any outside restrictions on my doing what I wanted with my expensive purchase, the equivalent of the legal 'restrictive covenant' would be a disincentive to buy said business. That was my question. And MY conclusion, perhaps a wrong one, is that during this time when takeover/buyout fever is in the CAFC/CL air, an ACV could well be a disincentive to any potential buyer. I take on board though what you say about the more, shall we say, patient potential buyer
The key fact, however, is that no alternative stadium for Charlton to play in actually exists. The time it might take to plan & build such a stadium will be far longer than 6 months. So the ACV really isn't a disincentive at all for any new buyer.
it could well be IF IF IF the Trust was able to work up serious opposition to such a move and put an effective short term block on your plans, or at best sour relations between 'fans' and your new persona as the new owner. Put it like this, would you buy a business where there was a potential air of uncertainty and mistrust between you and the 'customers' a k a. a core of fans vehemently opposed to your proposals ?
But the chairman of the trust clearly said in the official announcement on Friday that “It is our hope that we will not ever have to use the ACV legislation” which I can't see how can be interpreted in anyway other than "we hope no plans are ever proposed that involve leaving the Valley and therefore trigger the consultation period".
That doesn't represent everyone's views and is also inconsistent with the (very clear) post by se9addick above. So has the trust's stance changed or was the quote inaccurate?
Also whatever the legalities of it I don't think anyone can claim this wouldn't affect the thinking behind a potential takeover - if new owners are thinking of *investigating* the *potential* of a move at any time in the five years after buying us the trust have made a public statement saying they would be against this through Friday's quote. Could someone on the fence and weighing up the pros and cons look at a potential battle with the fan base after this implied threat and put it under the cons? When I signed the ACV petition it was because I wanted to ensure that we were consulted as fans if a move was mooted in the future, not to make a statement that I was against the discussion about whether we should ever leave the Valley being raised.
I'm gutted as I support the ACV and am sad that what should be cause for celebration now feels like it's been lost a little due to pushing just one point of view that has publicly been put out as the view of the trust (and therefore by association fans in general)
Yes I am hung up on this quote so if I'm being "thick" can someone explain how I've misunderstood? Se9's post explains the ACV and trust position perfectly but it's not the position on the trust website or reported elsewhere on Friday.
The current legislation to the best of my knowledge, and I was one of the original people on the trust that went down to the RBG to discuss this in the early summer does not stop any current or new owner from moving from the Valley, after the appropriate consultation period. Nor does it make the current owners have to accept an offer. As the other trust members have already posted, IF a move was to take place, where, when and how and I am sure would be discussed with the widest possible consultation with fans. A decision like this would not be decided by the trust executive, I would have one vote, for the one share that I have as everybody else has. I believe as a personal philosophy, that if you are a chairman of a football club you do at times have to make very difficult choices, but they are choices that you need to consult your supporters on. A move from the valley is one such decision. Anyway off the the Valley now to celebrate the 21st year of returning to it, and the new museum, another reason for wanting to stay at the Valley?
so the answer to my question, so far as I understand from your response Ken, is 'yes', new owners would be restricted in what they can do so far as the valley is concerned, at least for the next five years. This will suit the diehard valleyists and probably dismay those who would not be averse to a move away from the valley at some time in the future
I can't for the life of me understand why this is so difficult to grasp. Various people have already spent aeons of time explaining it. No, the ACV does not stop the owners of the Valley doing what they want. They are just required to give 6 months notice before actually doing it. At the end of which they can, if they so choose, sell it to whichever party they like. The 6 month period just gives other parties the time to put together an alternative bid, which the owners can totally ignore if they want to.
thanks for the answer RED FACED PETE and SE9 and DICK PLUMB .. so IN FACT, new owners ARE restricted as to what they can do in that they must give notice, consult with a group of fans and stand still for six months (or is it 5 years?) if and when a move from the valley is required .. to say that an ACV has NO EFFECT is, to quote one of you, THICK and STUPID, if the ACV was ineffective, why bother to apply for it? .. to use an analogy .. (I hope you are not all too obtuse or thick to grasp this), if I were to buy a property with a view to selling it straight away and there was the equivalent of an ACV on it, it would RESTRICT my ability to do WHAT I WANTED WHEN I WANTED for a period of at leastsix months. To my mind therefore, any sort of restriction or impediment to buying a business or property would make it less desirable than it would be if there were no such restrictions. Now tell me that I am wrong ....
Lincs, no business owner is going to want to move overnight are they? They will have to find / build somewhere to move to first won't they? All the ACV does is require that the owners give 6 months notice of their intention to sell. It will therefore have no real practical impact on any plans that the owners might have for selling the Valley.
I refer you to my original question. I appreciate your reasoned answer. However, IF it were me preparing to spend millions on any business (football club or nightclub or any sort of club or otherwise), I would have a very concrete idea of what I would be doing with my purchase FROM THE OUTSET. To my mind, obtuse, thick or otherwise, any outside restrictions on my doing what I wanted with my expensive purchase, the equivalent of the legal 'restrictive covenant' would be a disincentive to buy said business. That was my question. And MY conclusion, perhaps a wrong one, is that during this time when takeover/buyout fever is in the CAFC/CL air, an ACV could well be a disincentive to any potential buyer. I take on board though what you say about the more, shall we say, patient potential buyer
The key fact, however, is that no alternative stadium for Charlton to play in actually exists. The time it might take to plan & build such a stadium will be far longer than 6 months. So the ACV really isn't a disincentive at all for any new buyer.
it could well be IF IF IF the Trust was able to work up serious opposition to such a move and put an effective short term block on your plans, or at best sour relations between 'fans' and your new persona as the new owner. Put it like this, would you buy a business where there was a potential air of uncertainty and mistrust between you and the 'customers' a k a. a core of fans vehemently opposed to your proposals ?
But that might happen anyway, regardless or not whether the ACV exists.
But the chairman of the trust clearly said in the official announcement on Friday that “It is our hope that we will not ever have to use the ACV legislation” which I can't see how can be interpreted in anyway other than "we hope no plans are ever proposed that involve leaving the Valley and therefore trigger the consultation period".
That doesn't represent everyone's views and is also inconsistent with the (very clear) post by se9addick above. So has the trust's stance changed or was the quote inaccurate?
Also whatever the legalities of it I don't think anyone can claim this wouldn't affect the thinking behind a potential takeover - if new owners are thinking of *investigating* the *potential* of a move at any time in the five years after buying us the trust have made a public statement saying they would be against this through Friday's quote. Could someone on the fence and weighing up the pros and cons look at a potential battle with the fan base after this implied threat and put it under the cons? When I signed the ACV petition it was because I wanted to ensure that we were consulted as fans if a move was mooted in the future, not to make a statement that I was against the discussion about whether we should ever leave the Valley being raised.
I'm gutted as I support the ACV and am sad that what should be cause for celebration now feels like it's been lost a little due to pushing just one point of view that has publicly been put out as the view of the trust (and therefore by association fans in general)
Yes I am hung up on this quote so if I'm being "thick" can someone explain how I've misunderstood? Se9's post explains the ACV and trust position perfectly but it's not the position on the trust website or reported elsewhere on Friday.
this almost mirrors my conclusions .. the implications/potential effectiveness of an ACV are by no means certain .. let's hope that any potential purchaser who genuinely has the interests of CAFC at heart as well as a desire to make few quid is not dissuaded from making an offer that Jiminez & Co can't refuse ..
But the chairman of the trust clearly said in the official announcement on Friday that “It is our hope that we will not ever have to use the ACV legislation” which I can't see how can be interpreted in anyway other than "we hope no plans are ever proposed that involve leaving the Valley and therefore trigger the consultation period".
That doesn't represent everyone's views and is also inconsistent with the (very clear) post by se9addick above. So has the trust's stance changed or was the quote inaccurate?
Also whatever the legalities of it I don't think anyone can claim this wouldn't affect the thinking behind a potential takeover - if new owners are thinking of *investigating* the *potential* of a move at any time in the five years after buying us the trust have made a public statement saying they would be against this through Friday's quote. Could someone on the fence and weighing up the pros and cons look at a potential battle with the fan base after this implied threat and put it under the cons? When I signed the ACV petition it was because I wanted to ensure that we were consulted as fans if a move was mooted in the future, not to make a statement that I was against the discussion about whether we should ever leave the Valley being raised.
I'm gutted as I support the ACV and am sad that what should be cause for celebration now feels like it's been lost a little due to pushing just one point of view that has publicly been put out as the view of the trust (and therefore by association fans in general)
Yes I am hung up on this quote so if I'm being "thick" can someone explain how I've misunderstood? Se9's post explains the ACV and trust position perfectly but it's not the position on the trust website or reported elsewhere on Friday.
I think you are reading far too much into Barnie's words - I've just found the quote you refer to and the whole piece reads;
“It is our hope that we will not ever have to use the ACV legislation” said Mr Razzell “The Valley is an ACV because the fans, the Club and the Council all agree on its importance. In football as in life, nothing is forever but this great news means that we, the fans, can be part of any discussion about the future of Charlton Athletic Football Club
I would suggest it is the final sentence which is more pertinent. I can categorically assure you that Barnie is, as am I, open to the possibility that there may be a better option for our club than staying at the Valley forever - it's just important that we have that chance to see what that option looks like and have the chance to discuss it as a supporter base.
Please, please, please base your understanding and feeling towards ACV and what it means on the multitude of other correspondence which has been created by us and other sources on the matter rather than a single line of a quote which I feel you may be misinterpreting anyway.
Comments
I presume email reminders will be sent
Before Friday there was no onus on anyone to advise us "of any sale proposal" - you could simply have arrived at the Valley and received "a message to our supporters" type leaflets. ACV limits the possibility of that happening to the pretty unlikely scenario that the team is moved to a new stadium that has been secretly built without the Valley being put up for sale.
I think a lot of this is down to confusion and maybe that is my fault - it was my responsibility to write the FAQs for ACV back in July. Either I didn't do a good enough job or people haven't read them - but to be clear;
a) ACV doesn't stop the Valley ever being sold
b) ACV doesn't mean that the Trust will buy the Valley (honestly, unless there is a catastrophic property crash in South East London I highly doubt we could afford it)
c) ACV isn't an effective mechanism in all circumstances. Like all legislation it is open to interpretation and is a very new law so will take a while to fully clarify exactly how far reaching it's power is
d) ACV doesn't mean the Trust are against the possibility of Charlton ever moving from the Valley - simply that the fans should have as much forewarning as possible and that we then have the opportunity for discussion of the proposed business case - the outcome of that discussion, in my opinion, should form the way forward
ACV wasn't designed specifically to protect football stadiums. No such legislation exists. We, however, have chosen to make use of the tools available to us to give our fans a greater say in the running of their club and whilst there are plenty of holes to be picked in the ACV legislation I think that's exactly what a supporters trust should be doing and I sincerely hope our members agree and I hope prospective members can see the sort of work we want to do.
As an aside yesterday was a really successful day on our humble stall outside the Covered End, lots of people came up to congratulate us on the ACV decision and we got around 25 new member which is really positive. On the downside it was bloody freezing on that stall !!
If people don't want to read it then that's fine. But I find all of the sniping and slagging off from those either to lazy to read or too ignorant to understand a bit much to be honest. That's not to say everyone who disagrees with the ACV approach is lazy or ignorant, but it's clear some people are throwing comments around without an understanding of the whole concept - but that's not your fault.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2012/9780111525791/contents
I think that the Trust has done a very good job of trying to tease out and explain the issues in a clear way and are obviously trying to answer questions as they arise. But there remain quite a few supporters who don't know what an ACV is or what it does. It takes time, but you are doing well.
Anyway off the the Valley now to celebrate the 21st year of returning to it, and the new museum, another reason for wanting to stay at the Valley?
Again - and I'm not sure how many times I can write this - ACV does not stop the owners of the Valley doing what they want, only that they tell us before they do it.
This doesn't suit "Valleyists" whatever that might be, it suits Charlton fans who think they should at least have some advanced warning of what happens to their home.
I'm happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood.
To my mind, obtuse, thick or otherwise, any outside restrictions on my doing what I wanted with my expensive purchase, the equivalent of the legal 'restrictive covenant' would be a disincentive to buy said business.
That was my question. And MY conclusion, perhaps a wrong one, is that during this time when takeover/buyout fever is in the CAFC/CL air, an ACV could well be a disincentive to any potential buyer. I take on board though what you say about the more, shall we say, patient potential buyer
That doesn't represent everyone's views and is also inconsistent with the (very clear) post by se9addick above. So has the trust's stance changed or was the quote inaccurate?
Also whatever the legalities of it I don't think anyone can claim this wouldn't affect the thinking behind a potential takeover - if new owners are thinking of *investigating* the *potential* of a move at any time in the five years after buying us the trust have made a public statement saying they would be against this through Friday's quote. Could someone on the fence and weighing up the pros and cons look at a potential battle with the fan base after this implied threat and put it under the cons? When I signed the ACV petition it was because I wanted to ensure that we were consulted as fans if a move was mooted in the future, not to make a statement that I was against the discussion about whether we should ever leave the Valley being raised.
I'm gutted as I support the ACV and am
sad that what should be cause for celebration now feels like it's been lost a little due to pushing just one point of view that has publicly been put out as the view of the trust (and therefore by association fans in general)
Yes I am hung up on this quote so if I'm being "thick" can someone explain how I've misunderstood? Se9's post explains the ACV and trust position perfectly but it's not the position on the trust website or reported elsewhere on Friday.
“It is our hope that we will not ever have to use the ACV legislation” said Mr Razzell
“The Valley is an ACV because the fans, the Club and the Council all agree on its importance. In football as in life, nothing is forever but this great news means that we, the fans, can be part of any discussion about the future of Charlton Athletic Football Club
I would suggest it is the final sentence which is more pertinent. I can categorically assure you that Barnie is, as am I, open to the possibility that there may be a better option for our club than staying at the Valley forever - it's just important that we have that chance to see what that option looks like and have the chance to discuss it as a supporter base.
Please, please, please base your understanding and feeling towards ACV and what it means on the multitude of other correspondence which has been created by us and other sources on the matter rather than a single line of a quote which I feel you may be misinterpreting anyway.