ACV Status on The Valley successfully extended
Charlton Athletic fans have had The Valley re-listed as an Asset of Community Value (ACV).
From the BBC
The south-east London stadium was originally recognised as an ACV in November 2013, but the status only lasts for five years.
The successful re-application by the Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust (CAST) means the group must be notified if the ground is put up for sale.
Should that happen, CAST would have the right to make their own bid.
Charlton first played at The Valley in 1919 and it was their home until 1985 when, following financial struggles, the ground was closed that September.
The Addicks were forced to groundshare at Selhurst Park with Crystal Palace, and then at Upton Park with West Ham, but eventually returned to The Valley in December 1992.
The ability to list buildings or land as an Asset of Community Value was enabled by the Localism Act in 2011, and CAST chair Richard Wiseman said achieving ACV status was "very important".
"It recognises the role of our historic ground and club in the community and offers some limited protection against worst-case scenarios of asset stripping," he added.
"There is scope for strengthening the legislation to offer even more protection for historic football grounds, and we will continue to argue for this."
Full BBB link https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47245347
Comments
-
Excellent news and fantastic to make the main BBC Football page!3
-
Of the 4 teams in Europe, Man Utd and Arsenal lost this week and only Chelsea and spurs won. They are probably filling spacese9addick said:Excellent news and fantastic to make the main BBC Football page!1 -
Good news. Well done to all those involved.1
-
Well done to all those involved who quietly get on with protecting our club. Thank you, CAST and others involved.6
-
I don't care if all it amounts to is a delaying procedure applied if necessary. Very well done to our supporters Trust. Excellent.3
-
Well done the Supporters' Trust.
3 -
Well done all concerned.
1 -
Good work here. Thank you to those involved1
-
Excellent news, well done to those involved.1
-
Sponsored links:
-
-
No quote from Roland in the article? Or No Cahones?Scoham said:0 -
The success of the application – which was supported by the club – derives not only from the community value of the stadium as the venue for Charlton Athletic football matches but also from the highly renowned community work undertaken from the stadium by the Charlton Athletic Community Trust.
Clive Efford, MP for Eltham and former shadow DCMS, said: "I am pleased to hear about the Charlton Athletic Supporters Trust's successful bid to renew the ACV status of The Valley. Too often we have seen predatory developers attempting to make money out of our sports stadia. It is important that we do all we can to reduce the risk of this happening. By renewing The Valley's ACV status CAST would be alerted to any attempt to sell the stadium and could work to put a bid together to stop this happening."
Matthew Pennycook, MP for Greenwich & Woolwich, said: “I’m delighted that the Council has re-listed The Valley as an Asset of Community Value. The ground and the club are an integral part of the local community and this decision reaffirms the right of the fans to be part of any discussion about their future."
https://www.cafc.co.uk/news/view/5c66878523f57/acv-renewal-for-the-valley
5 -
Fantastic work CAST.4
-
Congratulations and a big THANK YOU to the members of CAST who have given their tie time and effort to getting this over the line once more.
Does it include the car-park this time?
I notice one of the contributory factors was CACT's use of the stadium - which begs the question about their use of facilities at the training ground. Would it be too greedy to ask that CAST now try to get an ACV on Sparrows Lane?
I realise that the ACV has its limits as a protection against the actions of a rogue owner, but it would afford us both knowledge and time if changes were proposed, and both could be invaluable to a committed & inventive fan-base like ours.
Thank you again.
7 -
This is excellent news, and although the ACV is far from perfect it does give both the historical link, and the 'community link' support to the Valley being our home. Hopefully the training ground will be next on the list for the supporters trust, I see that CAFC has again supported this, and perhaps the Community trust could all work together to secure that important venue. Well done CAST, and it's former Vice chairman for working on this.
1 -
Brilliant news1
-
Well done CAST.1
-
So am I understanding this right.
The ACV does not prevent RD from selling the ground, all it does is make sure CAST are informed before it happens?0 -
I am not sure it even covers him selling it, isn't it only for change of use?eaststandmike said:So am I understanding this right.
The ACV does not prevent RD from selling the ground, all it does is make sure CAST are informed before it happens?0 -
Sponsored links:
-
The BBC article says CAST have to be informed if The Valley is put up for sale, CAST can then put in a counter bid to try to buy the ground.Cafc43v3r said:
I am not sure it even covers him selling it, isn't it only for change of use?eaststandmike said:So am I understanding this right.
The ACV does not prevent RD from selling the ground, all it does is make sure CAST are informed before it happens?1 -
In fact I supplied the OS map defined area on the original application to RBG, it included the Car Park, and Shop, if the officers had not realised that, then they were mistaken, as it was also oversigned by the local MP and Richard Murray as well as Barnie then Chairman of the trust at the time. I think there is a copy in the Museum? the area shown is clearly marked in red on the ACV, and supplied to RBG in the application.N01R4M said:Congratulations and a big THANK YOU to the members of CAST who have given their tie time and effort to getting this over the line once more.
Does it include the car-park this time?
I notice one of the contributory factors was CACT's use of the stadium - which begs the question about their use of facilities at the training ground. Would it be too greedy to ask that CAST now try to get an ACV on Sparrows Lane?
I realise that the ACV has its limits as a protection against the actions of a rogue owner, but it would afford us both knowledge and time if changes were proposed, and both could be invaluable to a committed & inventive fan-base like ours.
Thank you again.
4 -
But what does it actually mean?
The 2011 Localism Act gave community organisations the right to nominate an "asset" to be included on a list of assets deemed to be of community value. A building or piece of land is deemed to have community value if its main purpose is to further the social well-being or social interest, including cultural, recreational or sporting interests of the local community.
CAST first won ACV status (for a five year period) for The Valley in October 2013, and we marked the event with a celebration alongside Greg Dyke, local MPs and club representatives on the pitch before the game with Birmingham in February 2014.
The Valley thus joined a number of other buildings in the borough to enjoy the protection of ACV status – Greenwich Theatre, East Greenwich Library, Weigall Road Sports Ground, The Bugle Horn, The White Swan and a dozen other pubs.
There are also about forty football grounds with ACV status. They include Anfield, Old Trafford, Portman Road, The King Power Stadium, Gigg Lane and The Old Spotted Dog Ground (Clapton FC).
What protection does ACV status actually offer us?
It means that any owner of the club who wishes to sell the ground (or any part of the ground including the car park) must inform the Royal Borough who will in turn inform CAST. We would then have six weeks to decide whether we wish to make a bid to buy the ground. If we decide to make a bid there is a further six month moratorium period while a bid is prepared. During this time the ground cannot be sold.
Let’s suppose that CAST did elect to make a bid and were able to raise sufficient funds during the six month moratorium. That does not that mean that the owner is obliged to sell the ground to us. The owner could sell to whosoever they wished and for whatever price they chose. They could also change their mind and not sell the ground at all.
The Valley is currently owned by Charlton Athletic Holdings Ltd which is itself owned by Baton UK and ultimately by Roland Duchatelet’s company Staprix NV. If Charlton Athletic Holdings Ltd itself is sold this would only amount to a change of shareholders of that company and would not amount to a disposal of The Valley. In that case there would be no obligation on the owner to inform the Royal Borough and no opportunity for any community bid to be made. We would only have this opportunity in the event of a planned disposal to a third party not connected to the club.
So is it really worth it?
The main advantage of ACV status is that it stops disposal of the asset on the quiet. It means that you can’t turn up for a drink at The White Swan or The Bugle Horn one evening to discover that it has been sold to a developer and is now closed pending conversion into a nail bar. You have the opportunity to gain publicity and galvanise local opinion against the sale. Sure, the owner can ignore the publicity and dispose of the property anyway but at least you have had a chance to try to exert some influence.
It would be the same with The Valley and it isn’t hard to imagine the outcry that would be raised locally and nationally if it was revealed that the ground was being disposed of against the wishes of supporters. There would be vigorous opposition and loud public protest. There would be a lot of bad publicity for the owner. He could, of course, simply ignore it all and proceed with the disposal once the moratorium was over but who knows what might transpire during that six months? It certainly beats turning up for a game and being handed a piece of paper and a map of South Norwood.
To my mind there is a second advantage to ACV status for our ground. It is a symbol.
It is a statement on behalf of local people and their representatives in the Town Hall that The Valley matters. That it is seen as a site which delivers social benefit and community value both through the staging of Charlton games and the club’s associated community work. That it strengthens community cohesion and provides employment opportunities. That it drives income towards local businesses. That it is a source of civic pride for Greenwich residents.
NEWSLETTER
7 -
Good work CAST.1
-
It's a bit weird the club trying to take credit for it when the whole thing is geared against the nut job of an owner.1
-
So if Roland sold "Charlton Athletic Holdings" to me, the trust wouldn't be informed? As that would just be a change in share holders. Although I would own the Valley and it would be separated from the club?
That's my understanding form @Covered End post. Have I miss understood that?0 -
I think so, although a better analogy would be if RD sold to the Aussies, the trust wouldn't be informed.Cafc43v3r said:So if Roland sold "Charlton Athletic Holdings" to me, the trust wouldn't be informed? As that would just be a change in share holders. Although I would own the Valley and it would be separated from the club?
That's my understanding form @Covered End post. Have I miss understood that?
I understand it as the being "informed" is relevant if RD/the owner tries to sell The Valley without selling the whole club.
(I may be wrong).0 -
Sorry to be a pain, wouldn't that mean they would be only informed if the holding company sold the Valley, not if the holding company was sold?Covered End said:
I think so, although a better analogy would be if RD sold to the Aussies, the trust wouldn't be informed.Cafc43v3r said:So if Roland sold "Charlton Athletic Holdings" to me, the trust wouldn't be informed? As that would just be a change in share holders. Although I would own the Valley and it would be separated from the club?
That's my understanding form @Covered End post. Have I miss understood that?
I understand it as the being "informed" is relevant if RD/the owner tries to sell The Valley without selling the whole club.
(I may be wrong).
For example if RD sold everything, except the holding company, he could develop the ground without the trust being informed?0 -
Not sure and off out, so I'll leave it to the "experts".Cafc43v3r said:
Sorry to be a pain, wouldn't that mean they would be only informed if the holding company sold the Valley, not if the holding company was sold?Covered End said:
I think so, although a better analogy would be if RD sold to the Aussies, the trust wouldn't be informed.Cafc43v3r said:So if Roland sold "Charlton Athletic Holdings" to me, the trust wouldn't be informed? As that would just be a change in share holders. Although I would own the Valley and it would be separated from the club?
That's my understanding form @Covered End post. Have I miss understood that?
I understand it as the being "informed" is relevant if RD/the owner tries to sell The Valley without selling the whole club.
(I may be wrong).
For example if RD sold everything, except the holding company, he could develop the ground without the trust being informed?1 -
Yes, well done CAST. So important this, especially with Rat as our owner.0
