This on the official site The Charlton Athletic Supporters (CAS) Trust has announced that it intends to apply for the clubâs stadium to be given Asset of Community Value status Read more at http://www.cafc.co.uk/news/article/...alleys-future-935037.aspx#2LrdZhdk1AtFUHtx.99 What do we think of this. My personal view is that this may not have been thought through since it may be akin to having your house listed by English Heritage- anyone is allowed to object to you putting up a lean to or shed and god help you if you change the stairs. This might discourage new owners from buying the club if they think they have to negotiate everything with an "interested third party". It could allow objectors to expansion plans should we ever decide to redevelop the Jimmy Seed or put a second tier on the east stand another route to challenge a commercial decision by the club. Yes it could delay the club in proposing a move to a new stadium which I for one would be against, but it might also hamper the commercial development of the club. Strikes me as though the people proposing this are happy with the status quo or haven't thought through the implications of their actions.
I am happy to support this as a concept however, my concern is the law of unintended consequences which arise with these sort of protections. If this only protects against the ground being sold separately from the club then yes, it is a good idea, but what about the collateral protections that could work against the development of the club?
Irrelevant comparison. The provisions you cite are to stop someone ruining a building of historic or aesthetic importance and are fully justified, even though they may be occasionally applied too fastidiously. The Valley stadium has no pretentions to either historic or aesthetic importance. Its value is as a community centre and is purely functional. There would be no reason to obstruct any change or expension which would help it function better unless they were exceptionally unsightly or affected the local community negatively in some other way to negate any benefit. In which case I would be all for insisting on a re-think.
I have managed to browse the legislation this afternoon. Whilst I agree that my comparison with listing may not be a good one, the principle behind the legislation is intended to prevent the sale of local amenity land to someone that the interest group registering the protection do not approve of and for them to be entitled to make an offer for the land even if the offer process only delays the sale of the land. Now whilst this might be good for protecting the local village pond it could mean that the registered interest group can prevent the sale of the land to someone they do not approve of. This could by unintended consequences prevent a sale of the club if the interest group decided that the proposed new owners might not be the right people to own the club. If I were the current owners I would resist this potential poison pill with vehemence. If I were Greenwich council, who if the sale were prevented or delayed or a sale to an interest group put through, would be liable to compensate the vendors for the loss of market value, I would also resist the move. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...atutory_advice_note_for_local_authorities.pdf http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2012/9780111525791/contents Whilst it may be undertaken to prevent the potential sale of the ground for housing, factory development etc it gives the power to a small group (only 21 members needed) to prevent the sale of the ground with the club. Therefore whilst I understand and support their professed intentions I am concerned at the potential it would give them for preventing/frustrating by delay a sale to new owners.
sorry struggling with 606 site.. this would not apply to the sale of a going concern, i.e. it applies to the asset when sold separately, and not to the sale of the club it entitles a right to bid and a 6 month delay only it lasts 5 years The argument is that overall it won't can market value because there is a growing movement that means soon all trusts will nominate their grounds thus, also as Charlton Board who now support this suggest their would be consultation anyway in a relocation situation. all this does is recognise that consultation somewhat in law, it aint perfect but its better than nowt
Your going concern statement assumes that the ground and the club are in the same legal entity and that there would be no advantage to holding the property in a separate company or selling it out separately from the company. 6 months delay usually frustrates a sale, I doubt that Oligarchs sheiks or even rich Americans are happy to wait that long. I am surprised if, as you state the board, support this.
Jonathan 1 I thought you had been banned from here 2 The process of liquidation is not simple and usually involves either a CVL or MVL process which includes the appointment of administrators to look after the interests of creditors prior to the step into liquidation. In the case of TJs other companies some may well have gone into an administration or liquidation process but that rarely means the directors or shareholders gain from such a process 3 Sacking the board is normally reserved for the shareholders who are ...oh yes, the directors.
Personally, I don't like the way you purposely antagonise other users on here. Your comment on the other thread with regards to Matt Wright was way out of line. Especially given the fact that Paul from Charlton live more than likely knows him well, and recognises the great contribution he has made to the club. Something you will never understand as you are wrapped up in your own fantasy world. You may not think Matt will be sorely missed, but neither will you once you are banned from here yet again...
Yes, but opposed by the Man Utd board who will take it through the courts. This will set the precedent.
This is another example of why the supporters trust (membership 600) should really be consulting the core of clubs supporters first (the other 15,000), rather than acting all snidey and deceitful and doing it under the underserved umbrella of the name' supporters trust'. They have absolutely no interest in the preservation of CAFC but this latest move is simply designed to piss off the board. Its quite clear that they are using these tactics to bully their way into some sort of bargaining position. Anyone heard that the board were intending to sell the Valley? I believe that such a petition was filed years ago anyway, upon our return to the Valley, so why the ST are claiming to be some sort of saviours of our heritage is beyond me.
They have absolutely no interest in the preservation of CAFC That is such a lot of cock even by your standards. The whole reason for the emergence of the ST was the preservation of CAFC.
That's what the Nazi party line was.....To preserve Germany. that didn't work out to well did it. In fact history ,is full of good intentions and cheap talk. The real undercurrent as far as I can see for this movement is to oust and install a board that they (ST) want to have control with. It is obvious that little men with big ambitions want to play director. If the ST are serious then let them mortgage their homes and put some real money down. Where was the ST when we got relegated? Or when we got relegated again.
I think CAST have an ambition to become Charlton's answer to Wednesdayite. Maybe some of the people who keep plugging the Trust line should have a think on that and what it means further down the road. Or ask average SWFC fans what they think of Wednesdayite I'm always confused about the Man Utd fanbase. FCUM attendances seemed to be very high at the start but drifted away down. Have they stopped boycotting now after their one season drought? Will they start again if Moyes is crap?
How will CAST find £20m to £30m (in 6 months) if the owners decided to sell the ground? Perhaps Andrews have that sitting in an account somewhere just in case?
