On ACV there was a heated discussion at the Trust board about the timing and how / when to consult the club before the application was submitted. In the end the Trust delayed the application to consult with the club. This was last summer. When we did announce it the club immediately backed the application with a statement from the Chairman.....Hopefully this kills the argument that ACV is detrimental to a sale of the club.
As time wore on the Trust started to receive information about takeovers, moves from the Valley and alleged stitch ups re RBG. But when you look at the logic of the process it is an admin decision which for some reason was taking too long. So we prepared for the worst thinking that at least there are elections next year!
One of the Trust board established that the deadline for tabling questions to the council is 11th December so someone was on the brink of drafting legalese for WTF is going on when we got the nod that something might happen this week.
And my point is? We took the time to research the options and deliver a result. We quietly researched whether ACV might have any adverse impact on a takeover and found the answer to be a "no" - as shown by board sponsorship of the initial application. None of us are trained journalists or political operators but we try at all times to demonstrate a collective responsibility to the Trust, its membership and ultimately the club we all support.
Overstepped the mark? Image for the club? Oh dear! I never questioned your loyalty to Brian but your support of the Capital Radio deal, and I heard you standing up for it, was in my opinion wrong, however much money it brought in.
And it was hardly well spent was it?
I did support the Capital deal, rightly or wrongly, but it was done over my head in any event. We were a Premier League club paying to broadcast our matches on a small community station that didn't reach half of our fan base. Capital offered to pay a significant six-figure sum each year for three years plus substantial contra advertising and they offered us much greater exposure at a time when we were expanding The Valley and looking to sell the new north stand.
I do think there was an accommodation to be reached over Millennium and certainly there was nothing in the deal that touched their coverage other than commentaries, but Mark had an all or nothing take on it, and let's face it he was the coverage. Richard Murray preferred nothing, because he didn't like the criticism of Curbs in the phone-ins.
I don't think the Capital coverage was much good in practice, but there's a bit of a parallel with The Valley and the peninsula when you think about it. Should we have stuck to paying for Millennium - which was an unstable business and eventually folded but was fondly regarded by those who listened - or reached for the more ambitious option, which was an unknown? Financially, there was no decision to make.
Capital had overpaid, which they soon recognised, and is why they scrapped football at the end of the deal. I don't know what you mean about how the money was spent.
This site does try to lay out the ACV process in a more digestible style. ITTV has either misunderstood or is deliberately trying to whip up ill feeling between supporters. I hope it is the former.
Time for bed long ago. A modest suggestion: Channel all the excitement / ignorance / / frustration, etc. and channel it into full-on support tomorrow. We need those points....
Time for bed long ago. A modest suggestion: Channel all the excitement / ignorance / / frustration, etc. and channel it into full-on support tomorrow. We need those points....
Why not post it on Tuesday that you knew it was Josh Harris. I mean nobody waited until next Monday to mention about the non story of the wages.
It's not a non-issue with the wages.
This! Depressing that the personal animosity between some on here is overshadowing precisely the issue Rikofold raises.
1. Such an "amendment" to the wont be because someone forgot to initiate the Bacs run!
2. Staff have every right to be worried enough to get that information out.
Yes it is. Wages were paid on the day they were contracted to be. It's got nothing to do with you if they were paid by BACS, CHAPS or in cash. The Club fulfilled it's obligations.
Yet before 9.00am this morning you were on here telling us that the wages weren't paid.
I'm with this. Credibility gets stretched when we see such bitterness come in.
It's a big jump from posting an accurate piece of information which was making waves inside the club and had clearly been given to me for a reason to this so-called "bitterness", which frankly is laughable now. I wasn't the only person who posted it anyway but I did so because someone wanted it out there.
There was a problem paying the wages. Staff were anxious, because they hadn't been kept informed. That's not down to me, however you box it up, and the consequence is that it emerged through two different sources on here. If there was in fact no problem then staff should have been briefed and it wouldn't have surfaced.
And I heard it from a completely different source, so the Airman baiting is quite unnecessary.
It's relevant for at least two reasons. Making waves throughout the club, particularly on the eve of a game, is far from insignificant. But more importantly it reveals that in the middle of the season we have a serious cash issue. The fact it was sorted by 5pm suggests to me that funds were needed and raised quickly, perhaps Richard Murray put his hand in his pocket again, who knows. Let's hope so, because taking on external debt at such short notice won't be cheap.
If you can't even pay your own staff, the chances that your creditors are getting paid is probably nil, which is a situation they won't allow to last forever.
EDIT: or I guess a cynical attempt at keeping your hand out of your pockets until it's someone else's problem.
Bullshit. People were expecting to wake up this morning to find their salary in their bank accounts and it wasn't there. That's bollocks whichever way you look at it.
As to the ACV. This is great news of course... but why is Razil as the chairman of the Trust saying he "hopes we never have to use it". I hope we DO have to use it if that;s what our new owners feel is for the best for the club. Let's debate it and decide what's best please. Not blindly say we BELONG AT THE VALLEY AND NOTHING ELSE LALALLALA
And I say this as someone who is linked to the Valley very very closely. If it's for the best of the club (of which I am to be convinced) let's move. But not say in my name to the press that we "hope we never have to" discuss it.
Who gave you the right to say that on behalf of all supporters????
What I meant was I hope we never have to use ACV because I believe our football ground should not be sold separately to the club without consulting the fans.
Razil - sorry for any confusion and as mentioned on the other thread big big BIG congrats on the trust for initiating this and getting it passed. Sorry if my bitching has in any way put a downer on the night.
Having said that, I don't think it's accurate to say we hope we never have to use it... but I concede I'm possibly over reacting. I do think you and the whole trust board are doing a great job so apologies if it seemed otherwise!
Guys Relax. A takeover can take sometime. He could have well been visiting against Leeds to have a look around the local area. Get himself a nice view of our current stadium from our Directors box. Take a look at our fans in the ground. Watch abit of football and then go home talk to the people involved in the deal and progress talks.
By xmas day '' Charlton Athletic, Where owned by the yanks ''
And more reason why this seems the most believable takeover to date
- Know how to do the big time, Spent 8 years there - When we was in the Premier league we often got close if not sold our 27,000 out - Easy links to Central London. Even more so if we move to the o2. Great spot to build a stadium - Can easily attracted more fans, Especially Neutrals, with more co-op boxes and posh stuff the average business man will think bye bye Fulham, Hello 40,000 new seater CAFC. - Only 40M in red. some premier league clubs will require over 150m, - around 5m budget will seriously strengthen our squad. - Looking at all the details on paper CAFC looks a brilliant prospect ... Why not?
So, is there a takeover or not? I think I might start a new thread...
Yes it is a German/ Russian coalition.
Or American.
I am really getting confused with it all, so many questions. Who put the American bid out to the press and why? Is there a second bid, would this be a preferred offer? Who are the German/Russians, are they separate offers or is it a consortium? Would the new bidders want to move from the Valley. What implications has the ACV had on the bidders?
Will just have to wait until it is on the OS because all of this continuous speculation is doing my head in.
Can someone explain why this takeover is any more believable than any of those reported since (if memory serves) 2008? I'm not being facetious, genuine question.
One thing that makes me less dubious about all of this than previous false dawns is that despite some pretty affirmative postings in local and national newspapers, nobody at the club has countered it yet. Thought they would have put it to bed by now if the rumours were unfounded.
Overstepped the mark? Image for the club? Oh dear! I never questioned your loyalty to Brian but your support of the Capital Radio deal, and I heard you standing up for it, was in my opinion wrong, however much money it brought in.
And it was hardly well spent was it?
Richard Murray preferred nothing, because he didn't like the criticism of Curbs in the phone-ins.
Perhaps the pay alterations arose because the current regime thought the takeover would happen before the wages were due, and they wouldn't be responsible for them. Do you mow the lawn when your house is about to be sold kind of thing. Perhaps the pay malarkey is another clue in the unfolding situation.
Granting ACV is very good. ACV is a backstop, if an owner (Derek the shark) tried to recover debts owed from the club by selling the Valley, or just to run off into the sunset with the proceeds - with a result or proposal that Charlton ground shares or merges with Crystal Palace, Millwall, West Ham or Ebbsfleet.
In this instance it would allow a small amount of time for Charlton fans to look at ensuring that the club remains in the area by having an option on attempting to stay at the Valley.
As a Trust member (speaking for myself) and having signed the petition, I am not adverse to change that allows Charlton to grow and prosper. I am happy to support a move to the Peninsula. ACV is only there for the hopefully unlikely scenario where we have a very unscrupulous or financially corrupt or inept owner that causes Charlton to be displaced from the ground.
Decent owners who communicate with the Charlton fan base have nothing to fear from ACV (or the Supporters Trust).
Granting ACV is very good. ACV is a backstop, if an owner (Derek the shark) tried to recover debts owed from the club by selling the Valley, or just to run off into the sunset with the proceeds - with a result or proposal that Charlton ground shares or merges with Crystal Palace, Millwall, West Ham or Ebbsfleet.
In this instance it would allow a small amount of time for Charlton fans to look at ensuring that the club remains in the area by having an option on attempting to stay at the Valley.
As a Trust member (speaking for myself) and having signed the petition, I am not adverse to change that allows Charlton to grow. I am happy to support a move to the Peninsula. ACV is only there for the hopefully unlikely scenario where we have a very unscrupulous or financially corrupt or inept owner that causes Charlton to be displaced from the ground.
Decent owners who communicate with the Charlton fan base have nothing to fear from ACV (or the Supporters Trust).
If it were Arabs we would have a small few who would dress with tea towels on their heads. Today does that mean we will see stars and stripes flags or hear people shouting USA USA
Comments
As time wore on the Trust started to receive information about takeovers, moves from the Valley and alleged stitch ups re RBG. But when you look at the logic of the process it is an admin decision which for some reason was taking too long. So we prepared for the worst thinking that at least there are elections next year!
One of the Trust board established that the deadline for tabling questions to the council is 11th December so someone was on the brink of drafting legalese for WTF is going on when we got the nod that something might happen this week.
And my point is? We took the time to research the options and deliver a result. We quietly researched whether ACV might have any adverse impact on a takeover and found the answer to be a "no" - as shown by board sponsorship of the initial application. None of us are trained journalists or political operators but we try at all times to demonstrate a collective responsibility to the Trust, its membership and ultimately the club we all support.
I do think there was an accommodation to be reached over Millennium and certainly there was nothing in the deal that touched their coverage other than commentaries, but Mark had an all or nothing take on it, and let's face it he was the coverage. Richard Murray preferred nothing, because he didn't like the criticism of Curbs in the phone-ins.
I don't think the Capital coverage was much good in practice, but there's a bit of a parallel with The Valley and the peninsula when you think about it. Should we have stuck to paying for Millennium - which was an unstable business and eventually folded but was fondly regarded by those who listened - or reached for the more ambitious option, which was an unknown? Financially, there was no decision to make.
Capital had overpaid, which they soon recognised, and is why they scrapped football at the end of the deal. I don't know what you mean about how the money was spent.
This site does try to lay out the ACV process in a more digestible style. ITTV has either misunderstood or is deliberately trying to whip up ill feeling between supporters. I hope it is the former.
As to the ACV. This is great news of course... but why is Razil as the chairman of the Trust saying he "hopes we never have to use it". I hope we DO have to use it if that;s what our new owners feel is for the best for the club. Let's debate it and decide what's best please. Not blindly say we BELONG AT THE VALLEY AND NOTHING ELSE LALALLALA
And I say this as someone who is linked to the Valley very very closely. If it's for the best of the club (of which I am to be convinced) let's move. But not say in my name to the press that we "hope we never have to" discuss it.
Who gave you the right to say that on behalf of all supporters????
Having said that, I don't think it's accurate to say we hope we never have to use it... but I concede I'm possibly over reacting. I do think you and the whole trust board are doing a great job so apologies if it seemed otherwise!
By xmas day '' Charlton Athletic, Where owned by the yanks ''
- Know how to do the big time, Spent 8 years there
- When we was in the Premier league we often got close if not sold our 27,000 out
- Easy links to Central London. Even more so if we move to the o2. Great spot to build a stadium
- Can easily attracted more fans, Especially Neutrals, with more co-op boxes and posh stuff the average business man will think bye bye Fulham, Hello 40,000 new seater CAFC.
- Only 40M in red. some premier league clubs will require over 150m,
- around 5m budget will seriously strengthen our squad.
- Looking at all the details on paper CAFC looks a brilliant prospect ... Why not?
You should ! also if you have any questions related to the/a move you should start another thread
Was everyone drunk last night?
Will just have to wait until it is on the OS because all of this continuous speculation is doing my head in.
;-)
Perhaps the pay malarkey is another clue in the unfolding situation.
In this instance it would allow a small amount of time for Charlton fans to look at ensuring that the club remains in the area by having an option on attempting to stay at the Valley.
As a Trust member (speaking for myself) and having signed the petition, I am not adverse to change that allows Charlton to grow and prosper. I am happy to support a move to the Peninsula. ACV is only there for the hopefully unlikely scenario where we have a very unscrupulous or financially corrupt or inept owner that causes Charlton to be displaced from the ground.
Decent owners who communicate with the Charlton fan base have nothing to fear from ACV (or the Supporters Trust).