There is no pending land deal... (1 Viewer)

[letsallsingtogether]

Simon,
if you are still on here,
I am sure I remember that the Football League said, just before the return to the Ricoh, that they were satisfied with the evidence that they had seen of progress on the new stadium. Could they be reminded of this, as they are the ones who could most easily have stopped the whole mess of the last 2 years.
What evidence could they have possibly seen, if there is none? Or were they just taking what they though would be the path of least resistance?

They must have seen those drawings on the back of a dirty napkin.

 

---

[LB87ccfc]

They must have seen those drawings on the back of a dirty napkin.

Correct, and because the FL are just as corrupt, were happy with the evidence supplied.

 

[The Gentleman]

No don't try to put words in my mouth, what I'm saying is that due to 'commercial sensitivity' they wouldn't receive a comment one way or the other. They're not obliged to, it all depends on how the question they asked was phrased!

Is that because it is already full with TF cock in it?

Sorry but couldn't resist

 

[Neutral Fan]

Agree on that. Although I live over that way it wouldn't be right for CCFC to be over here.

Shame that not all people in Cov take the same view about RFC Franchise Wasps.

 

[Grendel]

Shame that not all people in Cov take the same view about RFC Franchise Wasps.

Sadly you are sounding as deranged as RFC with every post.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Shame that not all people in Cov take the same view about RFC Franchise Wasps.

What has a Fugby club got to do with Coventry City Football Club?

 

[RegTheDonk]

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-fc-stadium-investigation-8373299

Maybe we should send a FOI request to Sandra Garlick - she seems to know where it is

 

[skybluetony176]

Maybe we should send a FOI request to Sandra Garlick - she seems to know where it is

Good point. I wonder if the Coventry and Warwickshire chamber of commerce are covered by FOI law?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Sensible solution is for the trust to approach the dean and ask him to approach fisher and waggott for the information and if he is satisfied accept his word

 

[NorthernWisdom]

But if they cannot comment for commercial reasons but the answer is "yes" - how are they supposed to reply?

They cannot say "no comment" because that leads to speculation why they did not say "no"

They do though, they point out that informnation has been witheld, and give reasons why said information has been witheld.

A flat out lie is a big no no and would see big sackings.

 

[SimonGilbert]

Good point. I wonder if the Coventry and Warwickshire chamber of commerce are covered by FOI law?

They're not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[skybluedan]

Just because you believe everything you read in the CT, nothing to get out of by the way.

Anticipation is the key word, watch & wait!!!!!!!

Dont believe what you read in the CT? But believe what people write on here?
Oh the irony of it all,

 

[Calista]

Sensible solution is for the trust to approach the dean and ask him to approach fisher and waggott for the information and if he is satisfied accept his word

You’re not the first person to propose using the church as an intermediary. Isn’t it just brilliant that whilst the club are boasting about their ability to communicate with fans and be “pillars of the community”, people are seriously having to suggest a priest as a go-between to see if they are telling the truth!

Tim Fisher, CCFC chairman, said: “I am not minded to comment on anything in detail until the land deal is done.” You don’t need to comment in detail Fisher, just stop being smug and provide the innocent explanation as to why all the FOI requests have drawn a blank.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

Granted - it's pretty similar, but there are a couple more organisations on the list now our FOIs have been included - Environment Agency and Dept for Culture, Media and Sport.

We have been submitting regular FOIs, and I believe the Trust have adopted a similar strategy. We ran a similar story last year.

About time for an update - and not everyone reads SBT. They should, but they don't.

Fair one mate. Carry on.

 

[oldfiver]

That's the beauty of the FOI Act for us journalists.

This is how Nuneaton and Bedworth chose to respond last time: “From time to time the planning service receives confidential consultations on draft proposals prior to the receipt of formal planning applications. Often these enquiries do not reach formal planning application stage.“Except where it is in the public interest to do so, the service neither confirms nor denies the existence of such enquiries.
“This should not be taken as an indication that any particular enquiry has or has not been received.”

The FOI request eventually forced them to confirm they had held talks with the club, but they were at a very early stage and nothing came of them.

Coun Harvey said: “As per our previous statement, the council’s policy, along with data protection laws, mean that we never confirm or deny speculation on conversations that may or may not have taken place between officers and third parties.
“However, in this instance the third party developer has released information that has enabled the media to deduce through a process of elimination that we have been approached.“Under those circumstances I can confirm that an enquiry has been made by a developer to council officers, however this was of a very speculative nature and at an early stage.
“Since that initial exploratory contact we have received no further approach and we are therefore not considering any proposal for any particular location.”

But it was not the FOI request that led to the disclosure but the developer doing so which meant the matter was no longer confidential

 

[oldfiver]

Was there an FOI about the Wasps deal? What does 6 to 12 months mean? Either it was being discussed 12 months before or it was being discussed 6 months before. Or was it discussed between 12 and 6 months before and then nothing happened for 6 months? Make your mind up o knowledgeable one.

WASPS first showed interest 2 years before the deal

 

[skybluetony176]

But it was not the FOI request that led to the disclosure but the developer doing so which meant the matter was no longer confidential

But they still replied as confidential in that earlier round in this later round they've come back with a straight no, not s confidential as the earlier round.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

They're not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So can we just beat it out of them then?

 

[SimonGilbert]

But it was not the FOI request that led to the disclosure but the developer doing so which meant the matter was no longer confidential

The second part is kind of irrelevant in terms of how the FOI request works. (It was also wrong. No developer had disclosed information. I think they got confused).

The first part is key. They couldn't deny discussions, because they had happened. They can withhold information in certain circumstances - but they have to be open about the fact they are withholding information.

Organisations cannot deliberately mislead in response to FOIs. If they do, they open themselves up to investigation by the Information Commissioner.

That's something most would be extremely eager to avoid as it can lead to criminal prosecutions and fines. https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/what-we-do/taking-action-data-protection-and-electronic-marketing/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Skyblueweeman]

I've just realised the under 'SimonGilbert' and his info on the left hand side, his SBT position is Telegraph Tea Boy! Love it!

 

[skybluericoh]

Nice to hear a council is helping out its local football club though, isn't it?

Very nice. People forget that CCC did help CCFC to finish the Ricoh. Just a shame that a hedge fund then tried to weaken the company that the council set up to finish the project and get it on the very cheap. If they had been decent they could have got it just cheaply. Still good job they (SISU) weren't interested in it anyway. Bring on the new ground timmyboy ...

 

[martcov]

WASPS first showed interest 2 years before the deal

So. RFC was refering to meaningful discussions. Showing interest is something else. That wasn't either his point or my point.

 

[chiefdave]

Very nice. People forget that CCC did help CCFC to finish the Ricoh. Just a shame that a hedge fund then tried to weaken the company that the council set up to finish the project and get it on the very cheap. If they had been decent they could have got it just cheaply. Still good job they (SISU) weren't interested in it anyway. Bring on the new ground timmyboy ...

Of course if the caring council and Higgs didn't charge us £1.2m a year in rent we might never had needed to be 'rescued' by SISU.

 

[italiahorse]

Of course if the caring council and Higgs didn't charge us £1.2m a year in rent we might never had needed to be 'rescued' by SISU.

Yes they should not have bothered taking over the stadium and left us homeless :facepalm:

 

[chiefdave]

Yes they should not have bothered taking over the stadium and left us homeless :facepalm:

Where did I say they should have done that? Pretty much any other solution anyone can think of would have been better for CCFC. CCC could have lent the club the few million they actually put in themselves so we would have retained full ownership. They could have given us a rent to buy deal. All sorts of options that didn't leave the football club paying for everything but getting nothing.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Where did I say they should have done that? Pretty much any other solution anyone can think of would have been better for CCFC. CCC could have lent the club the few million they actually put in themselves so we would have retained full ownership. They could have given us a rent to buy deal. All sorts of options that didn't leave the football club paying for everything but getting nothing.

Pssst, option to buy back Highfield Road

 

[chiefdave]

Pssst, option to buy back Highfield Road

Did indeed exist, of course it would have needed financing so maybe instead of taking on the Ricoh project the council could have given the club a low interest loan to buy back HR. I'm betting they never made an offer to do anything like that.

 

[italiahorse]

Where did I say they should have done that? Pretty much any other solution anyone can think of would have been better for CCFC. CCC could have lent the club the few million they actually put in themselves so we would have retained full ownership. They could have given us a rent to buy deal. All sorts of options that didn't leave the football club paying for everything but getting nothing.

So CCC take on all the risk and debt and then finance the club until they can afford to buy the stadium.
Got to admire your sky blue scenario.
Every CCFC fan including myself would love that to work but in reality the club could never bridge the gap once they dropped out the PL.
Should have stayed at HR

 

[bigfatronssba]

Where did I say they should have done that? Pretty much any other solution anyone can think of would have been better for CCFC. CCC could have lent the club the few million they actually put in themselves so we would have retained full ownership. They could have given us a rent to buy deal. All sorts of options that didn't leave the football club paying for everything but getting nothing.

They did

 

[Nick]

They did

I think he meant that we paid rent and it was ours after x amount of time. Wasn't it a rental deal but had to buy it on top?

 

[oldfiver]

Where did I say they should have done that? Pretty much any other solution anyone can think of would have been better for CCFC. CCC could have lent the club the few million they actually put in themselves so we would have retained full ownership. They could have given us a rent to buy deal. All sorts of options that didn't leave the football club paying for everything but getting nothing.

A bit like they have lent WASPS £14m ( £13m ? )

 

[oldfiver]

Pssst, option to buy back Highfield Road

Highfield Road was technically not supposed to be sold for housing but a way was "found"

And it wasn't SISU who were involved

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

@ Oldfiver.....Very true, but SISU are the core of all the s**t since 14/12/07 No amount of shovelling is going to get them out of it either

 

[chiefdave]

I think he meant that we paid rent and it was ours after x amount of time. Wasn't it a rental deal but had to buy it on top?

Exactly, if we'd seen out the full term of the lease we'd have paid £60m and yet had no access to no revenues, ACL on the other hand would have paid £21m and received access to all revenues. The council put in, from memory, £10m and Higgs paid £6.5m (although that was not all new money coming in). I don't see how anyone can argue we didn't get the worst of the deal by a long way. Our football club was basically financing other organisations ownership.

We know CCC can access borrowing at below market rate, they have done that for a now Wasps owned ACL so why couldn't they have done it for us? They could have provisioned a loan for £21m and given us full ownership of ACL. Given a lower interest rate and longer repayment term instead of £1.2m a year in rent we would have paid less than half that, and instead of receiving no revenues we would have received all of them. Had that happened there's a chance we would never of needed SISU to 'rescue' us, never had to go on rent strike therefore no administration and no move to Sixfields.

A bit like they have lent WASPS £14m ( £13m ? )

Italia seems to think they couldn't do that due to the risk of non-payment but they don't seem to have a problem lending the money when ACL is owned by a traditionally London based rugby club losing millions a year, how is lending to us a risk but not to them?

 

[martcov]

Of course if the caring council and Higgs didn't charge us £1.2m a year in rent we might never had needed to be 'rescued' by SISU.

Out of interest, do you know how much SISU/Arvo take out in combined interest and management fees? Is it less than the extortionate ACL rent? Is CCFC/Otium ( the club ) on an equivalent to a rent to buy scheme ( in this case are we repaying the loans and Investors through management fees and one day becoming clear of debt and "free") with SISU/Otium? Or are we just paying interest and management fees for no future return - i.e. for ever?