Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

ACV Status on The Valley successfully extended

edited February 2019 in General Charlton

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

«1

Comments

  • Excellent news and fantastic to make the main BBC Football page!
  • se9addick said:
    Excellent news and fantastic to make the main BBC Football page!
    Of the 4 teams in Europe, Man Utd and Arsenal lost this week and only Chelsea and spurs won. They are probably filling space
  • Good news. Well done to all those involved. 
  • I don't care if all it amounts to is a delaying procedure applied if necessary. Very well done to our supporters Trust. Excellent.
  • Well done the Supporters' Trust.


  • Well done all concerned.
  • Good work here. Thank you to those involved 
  • Excellent news, well done to those involved. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • Scoham said:
    No quote from Roland in the article? Or No Cahones?
  • Fantastic work CAST.
  • 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. 

  • Brilliant news
  • Well done CAST.
  • 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?
  • 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?
    I am not sure it even covers him selling it, isn't it only for change of use?  
  • Sponsored links:


  • Cafc43v3r 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?
    I am not sure it even covers him selling it, isn't it only for change of use?  
    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.
  • 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.

    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. 
  • Good work CAST.
  • 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. 
  • 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? 
  • 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 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).
  • 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 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? 
  • Cafc43v3r said:
    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 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? 
    Not sure and off out, so I'll leave it to the "experts".
  • Yes, well done CAST. So important this, especially with Rat as our owner. 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!