Search results

That’s simply not true. Key differences: 1) Developed land had intersecting council jurisdictions. Brighton Hove CC and Lewes District Council (LDC). 2) The planning permission for the stadium was submitted too, and approved by Brighton Hove CC and NOT to LDC. 3) The issue, therefore, was...

That sounds like a deflection. Either way, are these areas the size of Coventry? I get it it, from the council’s view, the RICOH is readymade for CCFC. It would be a waste with Wasps and Coventry can’t co-exist. Or, in a scenario where Wasps bail from Coventry, and a new CCFC stadium built...

The example NW and myself discussed was Brighton. Where the planning permission was submitted to a council supportive of their plans. It was an adjacent local authority that opposed the stadium. In that scenario, had the planning permission been made to Lewes Council, there wouldn’t be a Falmer...

Implosion impending...

Whether this true or not, the first of our statements made the claim that the NDA was signed ‘at the insistence of Wasps’. Presumably, as a precondition of entering negotiations. Maybe I’ve misread, but I can’t recall Wasps challenging that specific claim.

You’ve got a point. This wouldn’t stop Wasps also turning around and saying ‘we’ll drop the the NDA too if all parties agree’. Then you’re in a position where each third party has to agree. Since it’s not clear how many third parties there actually are, like Sepalla, Wasps could also be...

Double speak is the perfect expression. SISU are bad for calling for the NDA to be dropped, yet we will not drop it because there’s other parties involved... SISU’s track record is cause for scepticism, yet they seem to be the only party here who is willing to back up their bullshit.

It’s also worth noting that we switched to 3-4-2-1, with ‘the box’ after all of our wingers were out injured. As well as the option of dropping a defender, the opportunity to switch 1 of, if not both, central attacking midfielders in favour of two, quicker, more direct wingers adds another...

Everyone loses out. It’s a game of mutually assured destruction.

There’s only one Squeaky Robins!

Hang on, the reason Lewes objected to the planned work was because some of the land being developed fell under their jurisdiction. That’s a big difference to what you’re claiming. Hypothetical situation where we decide a plot of land: a part of it falls under CCC jurisdiction is a completely...

You missed out that the planning permission was submitted to Brighton & Hove City council NOT Lewes Council. If Brighton & Hove CC were opposed to the stadium as Lewes Council were, do you think that stadium would be built? Probably not. Only a part of some of the land which was being built on...

Every project has to start somewhere. The promise of a partnership with UoW means that they can supply the land and so on. It’s also outside CCC jurisdiction so potentially a local authority who can help the club crack on with the project. If in 12 months time no progress has been made, we need...

In an ideal world, we’d have at least started actually building on a project like this. Now we have something of a ‘fans group’ with @mark82 and @Sky Blue Pete having access to Joy and the club. Hopefully this leads to constructive dialog and accountability In delivering this project.

I agree it’s unacceptable that it’s taken 6 years to announce a ‘potential partnership’. Yet, the announcement is the most significant progress made on a new stadium to date. Now, I’m also of the view that the announcement, in isolation, is pretty meaningless. Therefore, the next year or two...

Knowing our luck, the tape would somehow and almost certainly ‘accidentally’ end up in flames...

Genuine question. Are there any penalties for breaking the St Andrews rent agreement in-season? If the bridges haven’t been completely burned (Real risk of this), I imagine both parties will continue to talk throughout.

Both of Wasps statements have been very, very vague. The fact that Boddy went into specifics, namely claiming he spoke to his Wasps counterpart, Vaughan, not once, but twice! This makes me suspect that Boddy is telling the truth. Especially since he is putting his own name on said claims. This...

The screw seems to be turning on Wasps, hopefully in the coming days we get closer to proper clarification of each side. My impression is that Wasps are hiding behind the NDA. As @chiefdave mentioned, they could have at least indicated a willingness to waive the NDA if other parties are also...

Technically, you’re right about the SISU promising to waive the NDA. It’s easy for them to say ‘sure, we’ll drop it’ - without considering other parties What has peaked my interest is the comparative willingness for CCFC to lay all the ‘facts’ bare. Wasps could’ve said ‘we’re willing to drop...