Whether we support your cause or not, you're always welcome to stand up for it and make your case on this board. Tewkes
I will not be supporting this but I believe it is fair to tell you why. The club should never rule out leaving the Valley again. Does that mean I would welcome a return to the dark ages and support a ground share? Of course not. A properly managed move into a newly built stadium should never be ruled out. If we had a option for a 99 year rent free lease on a purpose built stadium we would be mad to rule it out. Never say never, there isn't much scope for increasing the capacity, the transport links are poor and the parking is nonexistent. In my opinion the site could only ever cope with 35k attendances. Its not a problem now but who knows when it could become one. Chelsea, Spurs, Liverpool and Everton would love to be able to move. Move now? No. Never move? Never rule out the option.
Acv doesn't do that, all it does is require that the club consult the fans if they sell the ground separately to the club, and give them a right to bid. Nothing more nothing less. Other than it also provides a way for the community and fans to acknowledge the value the ground and club given back to the area
D That's perfectly alrite Bernie I understand that being on your cross must take up a lot of time. Forgive me, but your movement has more than a touch of the people's front of Judea about it- sorry popular front. You haven't neglected us but ignored us. Us this little site and without the blessing of the majority of cafc fans. Indeed your filing of the petition was done without consultation, democracy or indeed any thought for the majority. It's timing was deliberate to cause maximum piss off value to the board. You filed the petition already with the council right? According to your website this was done by consultation with senior trust members and then the general population of cafc were consulted. Bit late mate aren't you? Or don't we count? Is that how you will act, do something and then consult the majority? You say the fans have a right to bid for the valley, bid with what? Have you been given a promise here of secret backing? A mystery financer? Or do you expect to buy the Valley for £5000? Are you telling us everything? What will an acv actually achieve? Other than another reason to turn away a potential buyer and make the current board even distant from the fans. Why didn't you file this petition in 2011? Did the Murray regime not want you to? My land law might be rusty but the localism act was always there but under a different name or goverment department (planning acts and the kocal govt standards board perhaps) and local action groups always had the freedom and flexibility to petition local goverment, I can recall quite a few roads being diverted years ago to protect oxleas wood or something. The barracks also has some sort of protective petition from memory. I also find it incredible that after all that effort to get cafc back to the valley nobody filed a protective covenant or slapped a lien on the valley?. I am convinced someone did and your not saying. You have you say a thousand signatures - well done. If you get 6000 more or or over half the clubs season ticket holders I might sit up and take notice. I am not dismissing it in principle but your motives and practices stinks.
ACV = Richard Murray stooges / more of the same old familiar faces getting free food on match days in the boardroom In short...the people back in charge of the Club who helped get us in this mess in the first place. Lamb shanks indeed .. P.S: 13,000 Charlton fans I guess don't want constant consultations and committees, they jus t want to be entertained and see a decent team on a Saturday.
You are right I have ignored you, I'll try and be better in future its tough spreading yourself as thinly as we do. I welcome an open thread that will notify, and or a rep on each board. I also have email and contact details on our site, as well as facebook and twitter. Since we became more self reliant in those areas we have pulled back a little from hammering the forums. The Trust didn't exist until 5.12.12, I'd never met Murray until 2013. ACV was unknown to me until 2013 spring, like I said myself and most of the group are new to all this. In terms of consultation we made this public before submitting the forms, there is also a no option on the petition. We also consulted at length with the Board and indeed delayed timing to avoid conflicting with their business interests. However we also explained that this is likely to spread throughout the game. Its a shame given our past that some do not see the value of a notification that our ground is up for sale. Other than that, there is no conspiracy sorry its just not that sexy. If we were offered a ground that as you say was too good to turn down I expect the consultation that would follow would confirm that. We are a group of genuine people who want to preserve our football club so its around for our kids and their kids a d we try to do what we can to achieve that, and yes I expect we have and will make mistakes.
I'm still a bit unclear about your comment on motives and tactics, perhaps bullet points that I can answer? If I have to have a 'free' lunch with Mr Murray in order to get fan engagement with an independent, democratic, nationally recognised fan group and our Board running I will do, I returned the favour at a subsequent meeting. I am not sure how you can have fan engagement without that. I have three season tickets in the East stand, but will also suffer sitting in the Directors area once or twice if it means I can talk to people who run the club. Again if there is some other way of doing this please let me know. A bit more on the ACV thing like I said we've been learning, Supporters' Direct whose laid down codes and practices we adhere to, made us aware of groups like Oxford United who had applied it to Football grounds, previously I think pubs were the main use, plus Nuneaton. Also Anfield and Old Trafford were under application. Our Vice Chairman Craig can add more detail here as he is running the campaign.
My personal view is that Charlton will not be able to progress and move forwards while Richard Murray is still on the scene. His shortcomings as a football person were covered up by the genius of Curbs for years. When AC left , RM quickly presided over 4 managers and 2 relegations. His due diligence where the current owners are concerned, was flawed at best. I know he has loaned the club pots of money and is still guaranteeing other financial issues at the club, but in my opinion he has made too many bad decisions. Any solution to our current problems that involves a Trust and RMs involvement is not the answer, IMO.
I respect your point of view, all this thread is about is supporting ACV or not, if you don't think fans should be consulted if the ground were to be sold (separately to the football club) go and click no on the petition. One thing I will add to this is so far we have only 1000 signatures, we have not contacted the vast majority of fans direct yet, but we are finding our stall to be very sucessful. It was also started in the off season, we have limited volunteers and methods of contact. We require people to give their details, and many may simply not wish to do so. So I personally feel there may be a logistical issue, but hopefully we can overcome that, sure its a handy excuse but let's see what the numbers are like at the end not forgetting the club is supporting ACV - perhaps if they weren't we'd get more support, and some may be apathetic about it for that reason.
Hi guys, Apologies for having neglected this forum – as Razil stated we have a fairly small working party and organising the plethora of activities means that it’s just impossible to get round to absolutely everything. Razil flagged this to me as I’ve spent a lot of time working on ACV and I just wanted to clarify a couple of points; “The club should never rule out leaving the Valley again” – if the Valley achieved ACV status it would mean that if an owner “wishes” to sell the ground he has to give us advance notice – initially six weeks and at that point if we say we intend to bid (and the merits of a bid would not be of any relevance at that point) we are given a further six months to rally the troops and put a proposal together. I completely agree that I can foresee a proposal that, begrudgingly perhaps, we could as a supporter base see was best for the club but it’s this right of at least notice and the opportunity to organise ourselves which I think is important and I’m surprised that any Charlton fan would disagree that that is a good thing. “Move now? No. Never move? Never rule out the option” – spot on. VolauVent you’ve said on one thread “What is Richard Murray's view on the Trust ? Presumably someone would ask him, because at face value a Trust takeover would seem his least likely route to ever getting his money back” and then on this you’ve said “ACV = Richard Murray stooges” – so which is it ? Are we harming Murray’s chance of recompense or are we doing his dirty work for him ? You seem quite contradictory and the reason for that is that neither is correct. Why would ACV have anything to do with Richard Murray ? “Any solution to our current problems that involves a Trust and RMs involvement is not the answer” – Again, Richard Murray has nothing to do with the Trust. The Trust have no plans to “take over” the club. “You say the fans have a right to bid for the valley, bid with what?” – who knows – perhaps we wouldn’t want to bid at all. Perhaps we would see the proposal as terrible and to the detriment of the club and in which case wouldn’t you like the opportunity (and six months) to mobilise Charlton’s support base? I think you do us a dis-service if you don’t think Charlton fans can achieve great things against great odds when push comes to shove. “Why didn't you file this petition in 2011?” – The Trust did not exist until December 2012 “The barracks also has some sort of protective petition from memory” – not under the localism Act. Greenwich borough only has two Assets of Community Value, a sports centre and some playing fields (the old John Roan ones next to Sutcliffe I think). “I am not dismissing it in principle but your motives and practices stinks.” – You can never please everyone, but we’ll keep on trying. I apologise if you feel you weren’t consulted as you see fit. We have had stalls at Club day, and the match last week in the pouring rain, plus we’ll be there again this week. Anyone is free to come and see us and discuss their feelings on this. You can sign the petition either for or against ACV - one of the thousand signed petitions has been against the proposal. If we had overwhelming negative feedback we’d withdraw the application immediately but the feedback prior to submission and since has been overwhelmingly positive. “there is a section of our support who love nothing better than setting up yet another committee” – neither myself, nor Barnie (I think) nor most of the chaps who are members of the Trust board are on any other committee and I have no intention (or free time!) to be. I think I know who you are referring to Volauvent but he is not a member of the board of the Trust (I’m not actually sure if he’s a Trust member at all) although I have to say I have no problem with him at all and have a lot of time for everything he’s done/is doing for our club. “the Trust business. I question the motives of some involved. The whole idea feels a bit like peeing into the face of a hurricane. Its a response to our situation I suppose, just one that will always be hopelessly underpowered” – since incorporation on eight months ago we’ve garnered 700 paying fans, we want this number to increase of course but that is an impressive figure given we haven’t had a “crisis” situation which is normally the catalyst for exponential growth. We aren’t saying we’ve achieved our goals, far from it but I think the numbers we’ve accumulated shows the potential that this thing has. “Get your trust either on a democratic footing or wound up ASAP” – Not sure we could be any more “democratic” – we are governed by Supporters Direct’s model rules and regulations, hold elections in which anyone can stand and are incorporated at Companies House as a legally registered entity. Do we wish ACV was stronger (for instance conferring the right of consultation or purchase at market value) - yes, maybe, but we can only use the tools available to us. It’s very easy to point out the flaws in everything but never offer a solution but right now I can’t see any better way of ensuring Charlton fans have a say in the future of our home. It’s a little disappointing as I truly believe that the core principle, that the fans should be consulted over any proposed sale of the ground and have the opportunity to organise themselves is one which should resonate with Charlton supporters. I just hope we haven’t clouded people on this boards thoughts around ACV because we’ve made a mess of communicating directly with not606 and again I apologise for that. Cheers, Craig
I kinda admire your spirit to get a thing you can't use and may not want. I suppose its better to have an acv and not need it than want an acv and not have it. As far as I can tell the Acv application may well be useless and I will be interested if it indeed has ever been used on behalf of a football ground and wether it has been challenged via Judicial review. I can't really see it running in the courts and I ask you to tred carefully when challenging because law costs and asking for funds to run a legal challenge at any level is expensive. In this case I cannot see that the public interest is best served for blocking a commercial project such as say housing in favour of a football ground when the football club can go elsewhere to play. Have you seen how many school sports grounds are now turned into refuge centres for the less fortunate or less likely to pay rent? What happens if cafc fans want to sell the valley to a life science group and the supporters trusts dont (if a viable alternative stadium is on offer in the package ) what would they holders of the acv do? I view the trust with suspicion, maybe I have read lord of the flies once too often, but when I peek over on the other sites like CL for example, there is no democracy, no real balance of opinion and speaking personally, and given that is the platform for the trust, anyone who steps put of line is hounded away, with threats, group personal attacks, and just general abuse. How can a dissenting voice survive in the trust, when there are no dissenting voices? How can I walk into the beehive and say your all mental without one of the faux hooligans on that site wanting to cave my 'canister' in? Anyhoo I am sure that the acv is in principle a good idea, provided you know when to let it go.
Come along and you will hopefully see it is nothing like what you are saying, our committee is often divided on issues including ACV for a time, somehow we manage to make it work and I can assure you it is democratic. CL is not the trust, it is the biggest forum however and a lot of us spend too much time on there for our own health let alone anything else. I'm not saying any of this because I'm desperate to have you all in the trust but because its true. Feel free to email me [email protected] at any time and I will try harder to visit all the message boards more often while I remain Chairman
Well done Barnie & Craig for at least coming on here to spread the message. Please extend this to Into The Valley as well, which is full of equally passionate Addicks. I suppose the problem some of us have is with certain members of CL and the cliques they have formed over the years, which have ensured these fans always get the baubles while looking down their long snooty noses at the rest of us. It is reassuring to read Razil's disclaimer in that regard. The way these people act and have acted in the past has alienated many other fans. Boasting about stuffing free pre match food alongside 'Muzza' , ' Waggy' etc when you are supposed to be representing ordinary fans interests (LOL) and we are going out of the Cup to Northwich Victoria, ain't on. In a nutshell for me the current woes on the pitch are more important at this time, although I accept that long term radical changes may be needed.
Another new visitor from the Peoples Trust, sorry Popular Trust.... we neglected all blogs and sites in the past as we had scarce resources to start and our fan surveys told us that CAFC.co.uk and Charlton Life were the two main sites used by Charlton fans... As SE9 points out the Trust is now pushing towards 1,000 members... And to add to that the Trust also has nearly 3,500 contacts through email, twitter, facebook etc and one of these fans asked us to pop in and have a look here. Because of all the work that has gone in, barely 10% of the Trust website traffic now originates from Charlton Life whereas it was probably a lot higher when we started late last year On ACV it's a piece of paper which gives notice of certain things but doesn't stop everything... but it's a start... On the Trust talking to the club - fans have consistently stated that this should be one of the main priorities of the Trust as well as looking at the numbers and finding ways to assist the club... whilst the Trust started as a small group of fans, it now has members from all age groups living all over the catchment area and sitting in all parts of the ground... Half the fans predate the return to the Valley and remember what happened last time, remember the times when the board said nothing and news about Charlton was a few columns in the Mercury and elsewhere... now we have a board equally reluctant to communicate but this time we have the web and enough people wanting to bring Charlton fans together into an independent organisation putting across a view or range of views... most importantly about where it's all going on the pitch Hence we are releasing the results of the end of season survey this weekend... well over 2,200 fans participated and the vast majority agreed or agreed strongly that Chris Powell should get a contract extension... yep, over 1,000 ST holders and over 1,000 walk up / occasional fans filled in a few questions one of which asked fans where they thought the club should go... Nothin much but again, it's a start... and just to add, we use these surveys to guide the Trust committee as to where it should go / what it should be doing... seems to work because more and more keep signing up as subscribers and members every week
It would be useful if you kept background information like this going, SR - it will help inform the debate.
One thing. It is emotionally misleading, and factually inaccurate to draw the comparison between our departure from the Valley and the situation we may or may not find ourselves in now. One thing I insist upon is honesty and not playing the glickstein card.
wasn't it Sian Lloyd who once said that she wanted to be known as 'a good weather reporter NOT just a pretty face' be careful about assigning tags such as 'Popular Trust' to an organisation whose birth was slightly troublesome Yes, it seems that the current rulers have decided to become more 'openly' democratic and improve its PR but it is still seen by many as the 'anti owners' wing of CL which may/may not be now be an unfair assignment. I guess all you can do is continue your more inclusive PR attempts and perhaps advertise your constitution more widely (while perhaps updating it a little bit to reflect a more constructive relationship with the Club. I do not think sponsoring players shirts should be a priority but perhaps having a official charity partner could be an option..... have you seen the state of the Bolangi tribute garden recently? it is shocking!
