After the Millwall game - club reply to CAST p34, further CAST response p45

ElfsborgAddick said:

So on those figures it will cost around 200k at worst to have plod inside the ground.

Increase the grade A games by £5 next season to cover the outlay.

That wouldn’t cover it. Where does the other £100k come from. 

These are CAST recommendations...
Final Paragraph makes it clear that CAST are looking at ways to counter measures by police for future Millwall matches. I hope CAST are requesting a meeting with club and police as a priority to look at all ways of avoiding what happened & that in future Millwall fans are kept in JS Stand after the match.
The Club can look to helping by reducing Millwall away capacity to 2000, more stewards and paying for police & banning alcohol in JS stand etc. Tighting issue of Charlton fans buying tickets for "Millwall" mates in home sections etc. 

https://www.castrust.org/2025/10/supporter-forum-notes-published-2/

CAST recommends first of all that the club takes action urgently to ensure the gate between the Jimmy Seed stand and the Alan Curbishley stand is repaired, always properly staffed and always fit for segregation purposes.

CAST recommends that whenever there are any proposed changes to the standard entry and egress systems:

1. The police and club to consult with and share major decisions on crowd control / management with all relevant parties, including CAST.

2. The club to lead on advance communication to fans regarding pre- and post-match arrangements if these differ from normal. In this instance - and it may be the same in future - the police decided on the post-match arrangements just a couple of days before the match. Whether the club agrees with the police arrangements or not, it is incumbent on the club to use all channels available - club website, social media and email to ticket holders - to inform fans in advance clearly and fully of the arrangements. CAST will support the club in amplifying such messages.

3. The club to inform fans during and immediately post match of such arrangements via the big screen and digital boards plus tannoy announcements - repeated and audible - throughout home areas. The club also to ensure that stewards are fully briefed and ready to assist and direct fans as they leave the stadium.

4. Police to deploy officers at all egress points immediately outside the stadium to direct fans and manage routes upon exit, potentially including signposting and loud hailer announcements.

5. Police to identify and manage risks - including deployment of sufficient officers -  in the execution of planned external routes - for example, avoiding bottlenecks on Harvey Gardens, proper usage of Ransom Walk, temporarily closing Charlton Lane to traffic, managing the bottleneck of the Charlton Lane level crossing.

6. Police and club to communicate proactively with the rail companies - Southeastern, Thameslink and Network Rail - as soon as the fixtures are published to pre-empt issues concerning engineering works and limited train services on match days.

These recommendations were made on the assumption that the police will insist on similar arrangements for "high risk" fixtures in future seasons but this does not mean that we think those arrangements are appropriate or reasonable. On the contrary, they reward the anti social behaviour of a minority and they put the majority to inconvenience. We will work with the club and other agencies (e.g. local MPs) to counter any such measures and put pressure on the police to reconsider. After seeing similar police strategies imposed for recent Millwall games at Palace and QPR, CAST has reiterated our concerns to the Metropolitan Police.

Is it the Mayor or the London Assembly that are the effective boss of the Met? Len Duvall's the Greenwich and Lewisham member of the Assembly, so perhaps he's next port of call for lobbying, if not Sadiq Khan.