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.
now you are going off topic .. the issue is that an ACV IS in place .. any conjecture as to the situation if an ACV was NOT in place is for another discussion
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.
OK fair enough I hear you. The reason I'm attaching importance to it though is that for the vast majority of fans not on Charlton Life, and other people outside the club, this statement and the quote that formed part of it is one of the only parts of the whole ACV discussion they will have seen. That's why I think it's hit a nerve and caused me some concern.
I think the ACV is worth more than the legislation. Actually as I and many others have pointed out the legislation itself does little to stop the club moving if they so wish, particularly if a move is not dependent on the sale of The Valley, but I suspect that listing makes any thoughts of a new 'message to our supporters' a political minefield, and indeed gives fan-sympathetic (or anti council) media a ready angle.
This in itself might prompt a board to consult with supporters' representatives (and the most organised group in this space at present is the CAS Trust), but perhaps more than that their public support of the application and the collaborative approach of the Trust in the matter may persuade this and future boards that supporters and the Trust aren't the enemy - rather, we would make the difference to the success of staying or leaving and consultation would be a value add rather than an irritating hiccup or delay.
I think the ACV is worth more than the legislation. Actually as I and many others have pointed out the legislation itself does little to stop the club moving if they so wish, particularly if a move is not dependent on the sale of The Valley, but I suspect that listing makes any thoughts of a new 'message to our supporters' a political minefield, and indeed gives fan-sympathetic (or anti council) media a ready angle.
This in itself might prompt a board to consult with supporters' representatives (and the most organised group in this space at present is the CAS Trust), but perhaps more than that their public support of the application and the collaborative approach of the Trust in the matter may persuade this and future boards that supporters and the Trust aren't the enemy - rather, we would make the difference to the success of staying or leaving and consultation would be a value add rather than an irritating hiccup or delay.
Agreed Rik, what I think is good (but I haven't made much out of it because I think we need to highlight the more tangiable benefits) is that ACV, in it's simplest form, is a formal acceptance by the council that the Valley really is a special place which has a number of stakeholders - the supporters of Charlton Athletic being one.
precisely there is a symbolic value, not just for Charlton though in my view but throughout the game. Not every club has a trust though, of course this may change that, and not every club has a ground worth keeping
I think the ACV is worth more than the legislation. Actually as I and many others have pointed out the legislation itself does little to stop the club moving if they so wish, particularly if a move is not dependent on the sale of The Valley, but I suspect that listing makes any thoughts of a new 'message to our supporters' a political minefield, and indeed gives fan-sympathetic (or anti council) media a ready angle.
This in itself might prompt a board to consult with supporters' representatives (and the most organised group in this space at present is the CAS Trust), but perhaps more than that their public support of the application and the collaborative approach of the Trust in the matter may persuade this and future boards that supporters and the Trust aren't the enemy - rather, we would make the difference to the success of staying or leaving and consultation would be a value add rather than an irritating hiccup or delay.
Agreed Rik, what I think is good (but I haven't made much out of it because I think we need to highlight the more tangiable benefits) is that ACV, in it's simplest form, is a formal acceptance by the council that the Valley really is a special place which has a number of stakeholders - the supporters of Charlton Athletic being one.
Yes and in turn for me another reason to do the ACV process was to send a sharp reminder to Greenwich Council that they are the only Council in the UK where the local football stadium is the subject of an electoral message. That message might be 23 years old, but it remains relevant. Not least because many people voted for the Valley Party simply because they thought Greenwich Council had forgotten whom they serve, just as they seem to have now. We know that Roberts doesn't like the ACV, any more than he likes the Freedom of Information law. Despite his personal stance, it went through. I don't believe Councils are all good, or all bad. Sometimes good people are cowed by their leaders, but a law and a process allows them to stand up to an overbearing leader. Personally I believe Roberts needed to be reminded that whatever he is discussing in the boardroom at the Valley every home game is of wider interest, and that we intend to hold him to account for what may happen.
I'm actually glad some were against and that the question on the petition was not open and not leading. It means it was a genuine question which illicits a genuine answer and the response was 99.998% in favour.
Comments
This in itself might prompt a board to consult with supporters' representatives (and the most organised group in this space at present is the CAS Trust), but perhaps more than that their public support of the application and the collaborative approach of the Trust in the matter may persuade this and future boards that supporters and the Trust aren't the enemy - rather, we would make the difference to the success of staying or leaving and consultation would be a value add rather than an irritating hiccup or delay.