Search results

Playing outside of Coventry doesn't mean the club ceases to be Coventry City though, it the same way that Brighton, Bristol Rovers and Rotherham did not lose their identities when they were exiled for short periods. The difference here of course is the circumstances. Those clubs had nowhere to...

I think that's perfectly fair. I'm not denying that for one minute, and that is the frustrating thing. They had a very good case, and had they gone about things in a reasonable and non-confrontational manner, they might have kept everyone onside. Their instinct though is to bully and...

I appreciate the distinction, and it is an important one I agree. The problem now of course is even if SISU were to backtrack and articulate such an ambition, it would be too late anyway. I think we are past the point of no return. Could all have been very different like you say.

I'm trying my best to understand where you are going with this analogy, but I'm struggling to be honest.

I understand the Sixfields boycott, and I will not attend myself. What bothers me, is that if it has the desired effect and we return to the Ricoh, the same people will then be calling for a boycott of the Ricoh, and I am not sure how they reconcile that. I do very much hope that if we play in...

They played a role yes - and for that (and it was a very small financial commitment in the scheme of things) they assumed total ownership of the freehold of the stadium and a half stake in the management company. They got an awful lot for not very much (about £2 million), and having done so...

I'm not sure he 'demanded' a media black-out, he requested one, and all sides have apparently agreed - so there must be a reason for that. Not sure why we can't just leave it at that. All will become clear in one week anyway. Just idle speculation and lame conspiracy theories.

Not agree to the CVA and I think we can wave goodbye to the prospect of playing at the Ricoh this season. To answer your specific point, a boycott at Sixfields would be effective I think because everyone (more or less) would buy into it. Not so at the Ricoh where gates would remain adequate...

I have no idea what that is meant to represent, but I think I'm starting to like you. I shall wear my replica shirt tomorrow to celebrate :D

I attended a march on Saturday - the aim of which was to keep the club in Coventry. If certain concessions need to be made for that to happen then so be it - that is priority number one at the moment. And if we do play there, I will attend because to not do so we lose all credibility amongst...

I dread to think.

Lord above, there are some very odd people on here.

I strongly suspect the wording of any statement from Appleton would have been agreed in advance by both sides - otherwise I suspect ACL would not have agreed to observe a media blackout. Reading between the lines, I'd say there has been progress today. Time will tell.

Another small victory for the lawyers.

He doesn't think adults should wear replica shirts - hardly the same as being ashamed to wear sky blue I'd say.

Wasn't the plan to take over an existing unit that is vacant? Wasn't it the old Comet store? Just repeating what I've heard though.

The maximum allowed I imagine (about 1600).

Isn't the new unit going to be at Gallagher Park? Edit: just seen post above.

I have no idea how any conditions can be worked into the agreement as such, but it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't at least try to use this opportunity to somehow engineer a scenario that sees the club remain at the Ricoh. I do say 'try', but like most people am guessing. My gut feeling is...

My gut feeling is that they will sign it, albeit with conditions, but probably after some sort of adjournment. Could be wrong. It won't be the first time.