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 think so, although a better analogy would be if RD sold to the Aussies, the trust wouldn't be informed. 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).
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?
For example if RD sold everything, except the holding company, he could develop the ground without the trust being informed?
Yes. Tlhe ACV status only covers disposal of an asset. Development is a totally different matter which would obviously require planning permission. We are confident that ACV status would make planning permission for change of use much harder to achieve.
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 think so, although a better analogy would be if RD sold to the Aussies, the trust wouldn't be informed. 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).
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?
For example if RD sold everything, except the holding company, he could develop the ground without the trust being informed?
Yes. Tlhe ACV status only covers disposal of an asset. Development is a totally different matter which would obviously require planning permission. We are confident that ACV status would make planning permission for change of use much harder to achieve.
Sorry if I have got this wrong. Unless "Charlton Athletic Holdings" sell the Valley the ACV has no effect? Is that correct?
That is why we are keen to stress the limitations of ACV status. Even if we were informed of a potential sale and we were able to raise the money to make a bid there is no obligation for the owner to sell to us.
Nevertheless, we think it is well worth having. It would buy time for a publicity campaign and who knows what might transpire from that?
Comments
Tlhe ACV status only covers disposal of an asset. Development is a totally different matter which would obviously require planning permission. We are confident that ACV status would make planning permission for change of use much harder to achieve.
Thank you CAST.
Yes, that is our understanding.
That is why we are keen to stress the limitations of ACV status. Even if we were informed of a potential sale and we were able to raise the money to make a bid there is no obligation for the owner to sell to us.
Nevertheless, we think it is well worth having. It would buy time for a publicity campaign and who knows what might transpire from that?
And it also has a symbolic value