Well done Barnie et al for getting the ACV put in place. But I have a question..... People appear to be under the impression that the ACV will stop the club itself moving, but surely that isn't the case is it? The ACV relates to the ground and not the club. The owners could still move the club to another site, it's just that they wouldn't be able to develop/sell The Valley without consultation with fans. Am I misunderstanding the situation? Also, if a change of use is proposed, who will the council consult with ? Will it be the trust as they set up the petition etc. or some other form of fans representation?
Can only be great news. If The Valley is going to be sold on terms that the supporters disagree with, then it gives 6 months to try & do something about it.
If The Valley is to be sold & the supporters are ok with the arrangements, then the ACV won't hold back a sale.
and who are 'the supporters' will it be all, or a clique?
The Trust should be representing all supporters.
However, a good question.
If a takeover goes ahead & a move from The Valley is proposed.
How do the Trust decide whether to oppose the move or not ?
Trust ?
One step at a time perhaps? The priority was to secure the ACV which the Trust, against the odds IMO, have succeeded in doing. Let them draw some breath, have a few drinks, watch a game of football tomorrow and then they can deal with the other issues. In the meantime, as a suggestion, it might be worthwhile for you to draft a question and send it to the Trust
The question is:
How will the trust (if it was within their gift? is it?) reach a decision on a potential move to the Peninsular (or Senegal Fields etc) if and when the decision needs to be taken. Who will be deemed suitable to decide on such a critical issue?
Steve
ACV does not in any way put a decision on a move in the hands of the Trust. Why did you think it does?
Instead of trying to belittle the poster why not just politely point out his misinterpretation of the decision? We all know where your loyalties lie but there is no need be so smarmy just because your mates may not be able churn and burn as quick as they'd like to.
Can only be great news. If The Valley is going to be sold on terms that the supporters disagree with, then it gives 6 months to try & do something about it.
If The Valley is to be sold & the supporters are ok with the arrangements, then the ACV won't hold back a sale.
and who are 'the supporters' will it be all, or a clique?
The Trust should be representing all supporters.
However, a good question.
If a takeover goes ahead & a move from The Valley is proposed.
How do the Trust decide whether to oppose the move or not ?
Trust ?
One step at a time perhaps? The priority was to secure the ACV which the Trust, against the odds IMO, have succeeded in doing. Let them draw some breath, have a few drinks, watch a game of football tomorrow and then they can deal with the other issues. In the meantime, as a suggestion, it might be worthwhile for you to draft a question and send it to the Trust
The question is:
How will the trust (if it was within their gift? is it?) reach a decision on a potential move to the Peninsular (or Senegal Fields etc) if and when the decision needs to be taken. Who will be deemed suitable to decide on such a critical issue?
Steve
ACV does not in any way put a decision on a move in the hands of the Trust. Why did you think it does?
Instead of trying to belittle the poster why not just politely point out his misinterpretation of the decision? We all know where your loyalties lie but there is no need be so smarmy just because your mates may not be able churn and burn as quick as they'd like to.
Can only be great news. If The Valley is going to be sold on terms that the supporters disagree with, then it gives 6 months to try & do something about it.
If The Valley is to be sold & the supporters are ok with the arrangements, then the ACV won't hold back a sale.
and who are 'the supporters' will it be all, or a clique?
The Trust should be representing all supporters.
However, a good question.
If a takeover goes ahead & a move from The Valley is proposed.
How do the Trust decide whether to oppose the move or not ?
Trust ?
One step at a time perhaps? The priority was to secure the ACV which the Trust, against the odds IMO, have succeeded in doing. Let them draw some breath, have a few drinks, watch a game of football tomorrow and then they can deal with the other issues. In the meantime, as a suggestion, it might be worthwhile for you to draft a question and send it to the Trust
The question is:
How will the trust (if it was within their gift? is it?) reach a decision on a potential move to the Peninsular (or Senegal Fields etc) if and when the decision needs to be taken. Who will be deemed suitable to decide on such a critical issue?
Steve
ACV does not in any way put a decision on a move in the hands of the Trust. Why did you think it does?
Instead of trying to belittle the poster why not just politely point out his misinterpretation of the decision? We all know where your loyalties lie but there is no need be so smarmy just because your mates may not be able churn and burn as quick as they'd like to.
So says Mr Tolerance and Politeness :-)
Prague has asked a reasonable question and not belittled the poster in anyway.
There were plenty of posts on here poo pooing ACV and its lack of effectiveness when the idea was first mooted so asking why Steve thinks what he does is not at all unreasonable.
As I see it the AVC means that if the owners want to sell the ground they cannot without a period of consultation with the Trust. Is that correct?
Ok, Steve seemed to think the Trust had more power than just to have six months to talk to the owners and put their case across. Is that correct?
Prague, who is obviously well connected to the current owners, who in-turn must be a bit peed off with this delaying tactic could have pointed out Steve's misinterpretation and explained where he'd gone wrong rather than then reply like he did. Is that correct?
Yes correct on all three points and hardly bizarre?
As I see it the AVC means that if the owners want to sell the ground they cannot without a period of consultation with the Trust. Is that correct?
Ok, Steve seemed to think the Trust had more power than just to have six months to talk to the owners and put their case across. Is that correct?
Prague, who is obviously well connected to the current owners, who in-turn must be a bit peed off with this delaying tactic could have pointed out Steve's misinterpretation and explained where he'd gone wrong rather than then reply like he did. Is that correct?
Yes correct on all three points and hardly bizarre?
Not sure I understand your second point but "the current owners" supported the ACV application so hardly peed off.
As I see it the AVC means that if the owners want to sell the ground they cannot without a period of consultation with the Trust. Is that correct?
Ok, Steve seemed to think the Trust had more power than just to have six months to talk to the owners and put their case across. Is that correct?
Prague, who is obviously well connected to the current owners, who in-turn must be a bit peed off with this delaying tactic could have pointed out Steve's misinterpretation and explained where he'd gone wrong rather than then reply like he did. Is that correct?
Yes correct on all three points and hardly bizarre?
Not sure I understand your second point but "the current owners" supported the ACV application so hardly peed off.
As I see it the AVC means that if the owners want to sell the ground they cannot without a period of consultation with the Trust. Is that correct?
Ok, Steve seemed to think the Trust had more power than just to have six months to talk to the owners and put their case across. Is that correct?
Prague, who is obviously well connected to the current owners, who in-turn must be a bit peed off with this delaying tactic could have pointed out Steve's misinterpretation and explained where he'd gone wrong rather than then reply like he did. Is that correct?
Yes correct on all three points and hardly bizarre?
Not sure I understand your second point but "the current owners" supported the ACV application so hardly peed off.
Supported maybe, but at what cost?
I'm sure it's me but I don't get what you're driving at.
As I see it the AVC means that if the owners want to sell the ground they cannot without a period of consultation with the Trust. Is that correct?
Ok, Steve seemed to think the Trust had more power than just to have six months to talk to the owners and put their case across. Is that correct?
Prague, who is obviously well connected to the current owners, who in-turn must be a bit peed off with this delaying tactic could have pointed out Steve's misinterpretation and explained where he'd gone wrong rather than then reply like he did. Is that correct?
Yes correct on all three points and hardly bizarre?
Not sure I understand your second point but "the current owners" supported the ACV application so hardly peed off.
Supported maybe, but at what cost?
I'm sure it's me but I don't get what you're driving at.
Just a thought, I wonder how relevant the AVC application was to the leaks we all seen this week in the press. Everyone has assumed they were to flush out a prospective buyer or force the hand of a potential bidder, what if they were to sow discontent and division amongst us to prevent the AVC application going through.
Glad to (belatedly) hear this news. Well done all concerned.
What still puzzles me is, why the hell were RBG fanny-ing around with this, re-inventing the process etc? I could kind of understand it if the potential new owners wanted a clean path for moving away from the valley, but why grant it now rather than weeks ago?
Just to bring some clarity - I understand that the community entity which has made the successful application for ACV is the one which is informed by the council IF there is a proposal for a sale. So the Trust is either consulted or can extend that consultation and set about raising finance to buy the ground. There are a number of legitimate questions higher up the thread about why the Trust are consulted and are they representative.
And I will answer again - the Trust are the ones who submitted so they are the contact point.
The supporters Trust currently has around 850 members which is obviously not enough to be considered representative!
But in addition it also has 750 subscribers who read our emails every week and an overall fan contact base of 4,000 via email and twitter. And it has just agreed a promotional deal with Valley Gold which has 1,900 members.
We don't know exactly what the future holds but the second year is going to be equally challenging. If the Trust maintains the current rate of growth working with the club and other groups then it might have 6,000 fan contacts by the end of the season. Yes 6,000 in just 18 months from the launch to next May!
Enough to be representative I think(?) and perhaps enough to think of ways to help the club go forwards.
And who is going to do all of the work to build in the second year. Well the good news is that in our feedback survey we received offers from 150 fans to help Trust activities with donations, writing, helping the stall, distributing flyers and Trust News etc. etc. The board have worked bloody hard in the first year and now we have a load more fans to help out - in fact about five times the number we started with!
I think that does help to clarify matters. As I understand it, one area of concern has been that in order to have your views as a CAFC supporter count, you need to have been a subscriber to CAST, in effect paying £5.00 to 'buy a vote'. I feel it would be helpful to outline the consultation processes that CAST would need to undertake if or when the occasion arises. But right now, a few bevvies, a football match and a rest from paperwork and e mails seem to be needed.
Can only be great news. If The Valley is going to be sold on terms that the supporters disagree with, then it gives 6 months to try & do something about it.
If The Valley is to be sold & the supporters are ok with the arrangements, then the ACV won't hold back a sale.
That's exactly it. It's great to have a success like this but it's time to continue moving forward, this is a feather in our cap but only works if we can represent as many Addicks around the world. If you've joined, please take this as a sign that we're trying so hard to work for you and renew - if you haven't joined please take this as evidence that we're so committed to working for you and join.
Why do we "hope we never have to use it". What if it's in the best interest of the club? I have to say the trust make some ridiculous statements and I question my membership.
Surely "if we ever have to use it" would have been a better statement? I feel like the trust makes statements that are of a political viewpoint I don't share and for that reason I'm probably out when it comes to renewal.
I love the Valley. I hope we never leave the Valley (assuming there's a commercial reason to stay) but to say on my behalf "we hope we never have to use" ACV.
Nah
Sorry too far for me. I would have thought after all the comments on the takeover thread the CAST mouthpieces would have realised that wasn't necessarily a consensus. But again they have been shown to voice their personal views as that of their membership.
Why do we "hope we never have to use it". What if it's in the best interest of the club? I have to say the trust make some ridiculous statements and I question my membership.
Surely "if we ever have to use it" would have been a better statement? I feel like the trust makes statements that are of a political viewpoint I don't share and for that reason I'm probably out when it comes to renewal.
I love the Valley. I hope we never leave the Valley (assuming there's a commercial reason to stay) but to say on my behalf "we hope we never have to use" ACV.
Nah
Sorry too far for me. I would have thought after all the comments on the takeover thread the CAST mouthpieces would have realised that wasn't necessarily a consensus. But again they have been shown to voice their personal views as that of their membership.
Sorry, not sure where you got that "quote" from - it certainly isn't policy. CAST believes in giving Addicks a voice, I assume that's why you joined, maybe - as you allude - our fans would on the balance of things prefer to leave the Valley with great regret for another option. Maybe they'd like to stay. Either way it's important that we're heard and today we're a step closer to that goal than we were yesterday and that's thanks in part to your £5, don't over react to a couple of words on an Internet site, look at the achievement.
It was meant to mean that I hope the situation (where the Valley is sold without consulting the fans and getting agreement) never arises which is pretty much the only circumstance it would apply/be taken up.
I reserve the right to have my own personal feelings about the Valley, I am fan like anyone else but I don't believe i have ever intentionally claimed to speak for Charlton fans in that way or indeed any other except where presenting research findings.
To add to that we have repeatedly said we would consult all fans - we'd be mad not to in my view. We've done that several times now already on a number of topics in a number of surveys which demonstrates our approach.
And to be fair to us we have done this from day one, we aim to give fans a voice, but never without finding out what they think. We have stood out in the pouring rain or cold missing out on time with our kids or others time with their drinking buddies numerous times talking to fans and attempting to scientifically establish what cafc fans views are.
Why do we "hope we never have to use it". What if it's in the best interest of the club? I have to say the trust make some ridiculous statements and I question my membership.
Surely "if we ever have to use it" would have been a better statement? I feel like the trust makes statements that are of a political viewpoint I don't share and for that reason I'm probably out when it comes to renewal.
I love the Valley. I hope we never leave the Valley (assuming there's a commercial reason to stay) but to say on my behalf "we hope we never have to use" ACV.
Nah
Sorry too far for me. I would have thought after all the comments on the takeover thread the CAST mouthpieces would have realised that wasn't necessarily a consensus. But again they have been shown to voice their personal views as that of their membership.
Sorry Leaburn, but I do not quite understand your post...... Let me assure you that there is not a consensus to stay at the Valley, regardless...... which your post implies. I assume you mean the 'best interests in the club' are you referring to the owners?..... or the supporters.? Let's not jump to what could happen in the future on the night that we have secured the right to be informed of an intention to move, that is it. no more no less. I wish personally it was more...... If CAFC moves from the Valley, like yourself I will be upset personally. But let us rejoice that unlike yesterday,or last month we at least have the opportunity to be informed of this possible move. Good on you for speaking up, please come along to one of our public meetings and give your point of view, as you are a member you have a right to do so.
OK I apologise if I have misunderstood, but the meaning I took was that the ACV (which I signed the petition for and support!) was there to give us an early warning if owners (new or old) wanted to sell the ground/move CAFC
So based on that, to say we " hope we never have to use it " implies that the CAST hopes the owners never want to consider moving from the Valley.
I just don't think that is an accurate thing to say. I hope that IF the owners say that they want us to leave the Valley in the future, then we have an opportunity to discuss it, which is why I value the ACV so much... but that doesn't mean I hope we never use it, because there may be a situation in the future when leaving the Valley is genuinely the best choice for the club.
I guess it's semantics and I apologise if I have come over aggressively against the statement, I just don't think it necessarily represents my, or many others, views.
But if I'm misunderstanding something then very happy to retract what I previously posted.
And by the way, getting the ACV is awesome news and well done the trust and all involved and I do apologise for not recognising the achievement in my original mail!
I support the trust 100% which is why I'm questioning some of the wording of the quote is all.
We are on a journey my friend and the more people who pay attention, the more who join, and the more who volunteer to help build this new supporters movement... Well, lets just say it ain't 30 fans in the back room of the con club! That was what I encountered when I went along in September 2012. At the last count we have 1,900 on ACV...2,252 on the last fan survey...2,500 email addresses for interested fans... In just 12 months the Trust is hitting the same numbers as the old supporters director elections ...exceptthose were once every two years and that the Trust is still growing and it is in touch with fans week in week out by email surveys, articles etc.
Can only be great news. If The Valley is going to be sold on terms that the supporters disagree with, then it gives 6 months to try & do something about it.
If The Valley is to be sold & the supporters are ok with the arrangements, then the ACV won't hold back a sale.
and who are 'the supporters' will it be all, or a clique?
Well. look, there is nothing whatsoever stopping anyone from either having an opinion or expressing it is there? Well, except for apathy of course: there's at lot of that about. So, no, of course it won't be all supporters because the majority can't be bothered to express an opinion. It's the same with everything, for example, everyone gets a vote in local elections - but how many use it?
Meanwhile, congratulations to the Trust! Well done.
I would just like to clarify that CASTrust are not against a move from the valley and would only seek to block a move should fans (not exclusively trust members) collectively show their desire to stay. If the majority of fans showed desire to quit the valley then CASTrust would support a move. As a trust board member I can assure you that those on the board do not all share the same opinion on a hypothetical move.
BTW, I won't really believe it until it's on the RB of G's official site. I looked at their press releases - nothing - although there are still tickets available for an "Over 60s disco".
Comments
We all know where your loyalties lie but there is no need be so smarmy just because your mates may not be able churn and burn as quick as they'd like to.
Prague has asked a reasonable question and not belittled the poster in anyway.
There were plenty of posts on here poo pooing ACV and its lack of effectiveness when the idea was first mooted so asking why Steve thinks what he does is not at all unreasonable.
Ok, Steve seemed to think the Trust had more power than just to have six months to talk to the owners and put their case across. Is that correct?
Prague, who is obviously well connected to the current owners, who in-turn must be a bit peed off with this delaying tactic could have pointed out Steve's misinterpretation and explained where he'd gone wrong rather than then reply like he did. Is that correct?
Yes correct on all three points and hardly bizarre?
What still puzzles me is, why the hell were RBG fanny-ing around with this, re-inventing the process etc? I could kind of understand it if the potential new owners wanted a clean path for moving away from the valley, but why grant it now rather than weeks ago?
And I will answer again - the Trust are the ones who submitted so they are the contact point.
The supporters Trust currently has around 850 members which is obviously not enough to be considered representative!
But in addition it also has 750 subscribers who read our emails every week and an overall fan contact base of 4,000 via email and twitter. And it has just agreed a promotional deal with Valley Gold which has 1,900 members.
We don't know exactly what the future holds but the second year is going to be equally challenging. If the Trust maintains the current rate of growth working with the club and other groups then it might have 6,000 fan contacts by the end of the season. Yes 6,000 in just 18 months from the launch to next May!
Enough to be representative I think(?) and perhaps enough to think of ways to help the club go forwards.
And who is going to do all of the work to build in the second year. Well the good news is that in our feedback survey we received offers from 150 fans to help Trust activities with donations, writing, helping the stall, distributing flyers and Trust News etc. etc.
The board have worked bloody hard in the first year and now we have a load more fans to help out - in fact about five times the number we started with!
I feel it would be helpful to outline the consultation processes that CAST would need to undertake if or when the occasion arises.
But right now, a few bevvies, a football match and a rest from paperwork and e mails seem to be needed.
Surely "if we ever have to use it" would have been a better statement? I feel like the trust makes statements that are of a political viewpoint I don't share and for that reason I'm probably out when it comes to renewal.
I love the Valley. I hope we never leave the Valley (assuming there's a commercial reason to stay) but to say on my behalf "we hope we never have to use" ACV.
Nah
Sorry too far for me. I would have thought after all the comments on the takeover thread the CAST mouthpieces would have realised that wasn't necessarily a consensus. But again they have been shown to voice their personal views as that of their membership.
I reserve the right to have my own personal feelings about the Valley, I am fan like anyone else but I don't believe i have ever intentionally claimed to speak for Charlton fans in that way or indeed any other except where presenting research findings.
To add to that we have repeatedly said we would consult all fans - we'd be mad not to in my view. We've done that several times now already on a number of topics in a number of surveys which demonstrates our approach.
And to be fair to us we have done this from day one, we aim to give fans a voice, but never without finding out what they think. We have stood out in the pouring rain or cold missing out on time with our kids or others time with their drinking buddies numerous times talking to fans and attempting to scientifically establish what cafc fans views are.
I assume you mean the 'best interests in the club' are you referring to the owners?..... or the supporters.?
Let's not jump to what could happen in the future on the night that we have secured the right to be informed of an intention to move, that is it. no more no less.
I wish personally it was more......
If CAFC moves from the Valley, like yourself I will be upset personally. But let us rejoice that unlike yesterday,or last month we at least have the opportunity to be informed of this possible move.
Good on you for speaking up, please come along to one of our public meetings and give your point of view, as you are a member you have a right to do so.
So based on that, to say we " hope we never have to use it " implies that the CAST hopes the owners never want to consider moving from the Valley.
I just don't think that is an accurate thing to say. I hope that IF the owners say that they want us to leave the Valley in the future, then we have an opportunity to discuss it, which is why I value the ACV so much... but that doesn't mean I hope we never use it, because there may be a situation in the future when leaving the Valley is genuinely the best choice for the club.
I guess it's semantics and I apologise if I have come over aggressively against the statement, I just don't think it necessarily represents my, or many others, views.
But if I'm misunderstanding something then very happy to retract what I previously posted.
I support the trust 100% which is why I'm questioning some of the wording of the quote is all.
Critical friend and all that
Well, lets just say it ain't 30 fans in the back room of the con club! That was what I encountered when I went along in September 2012.
At the last count we have 1,900 on ACV...2,252 on the last fan survey...2,500 email addresses for interested fans...
In just 12 months the Trust is hitting the same numbers as the old supporters director elections
...exceptthose were once every two years and that the Trust is still growing and it is in touch with fans week in week out by email surveys, articles etc.
ACV is great...but maybe just the start?!
Meanwhile, congratulations to the Trust! Well done.
I looked at their press releases - nothing - although there are still tickets available for an "Over 60s disco".