Do we know that the club wants a long term agreement?
the football club wants to continue its tenancy at the Higgs Centre to house the club’s Academy and has been trying to discuss a long term tenancy for our Academy at the Higgs Centre beyond 2017.
Do we know that the club wants a long term agreement? How long ago was the last TF comment about a stadium complex? Then the denials about the BPA and the resultant confirmations? There is no space at the BPA for an academy- as far as we know. Do we, or Higg's for that matter, really know wtf is going on beyond next week? No. JRs, cloak and dagger, announcements which never come to fruit, announcements in the press - " Jubelmeldungen " - and then denials, and then - in effect - denials of the denials. Business plan? Never ever been shown to anyone or even quoted by anyone. The last known plan between CCC and Joy was the plan to rip off the bank and it's share holders by offering a part-payment on the loan or we let ACL fail. That came to nothing. Since then it's all been down hill and this is the latest set back. An offer of rent guarantee for the next ten years may convince people that CCFC are serious. You can get these guarantees from a third party against a fee and some form of security ( e.g. Backed by Arvo). To lose the one positive and successful asset of CCFC ( imo) would be a more immediate disaster than being tenants of the Ricoh.
We have not given our landlord notice that we would want to vacate the property when the lease ends. Instead, the football club wants to continue its tenancy at the Higgs Centre to house the club’s Academy and has been trying to discuss a long term tenancy for our Academy at the Higgs Centre beyond 2017
Once again this thread shows that people are more concerned about finger pointing than the immediate danger to the club's academy.
Who cares how he contacted them. The important point here he has now made it very clear he has contacted them and wants to extend the lease. So either CSF are ignoring the club or they have somehow missed all of Anderson's attempts to contact them. If its the former its a disgrace, if its the latter then I'm sure we'll see a clear statement from CSF indicating they are happy to extend the lease and will be speaking to the club ASAP.
Do we know that the club wants a long term agreement? How long ago was the last TF comment about a stadium complex? Then the denials about the BPA and the resultant confirmations? There is no space at the BPA for an academy- as far as we know. Do we, or Higg's for that matter, really know wtf is going on beyond next week? No. JRs, cloak and dagger, announcements which never come to fruit, announcements in the press - " Jubelmeldungen " - and then denials, and then - in effect - denials of the denials. Business plan? Never ever been shown to anyone or even quoted by anyone. The last known plan between CCC and Joy was the plan to rip off the bank and it's share holders by offering a part-payment on the loan or we let ACL fail. That came to nothing. Since then it's all been down hill and this is the latest set back. An offer of rent guarantee for the next ten years may convince people that CCFC are serious. You can get these guarantees from a third party against a fee and some form of security ( e.g. Backed by Arvo). To lose the one positive and successful asset of CCFC ( imo) would be a more immediate disaster than being tenants of the Ricoh.
The Reid article says CSF have made no contact with the club to say they will be unable to continue using the centre. In fact the opposite is the case, Anderson says they were previously talking about a long term deal. That being the case its not surprising they weren't aware. Common courtesy would say CSF should have been keeping the club informed.Also worrying is that it comes across that they were not aware, that the club are panicked by the outcome and the implication that the club might end up outside of Coventry.
Ah, I see. The poor man had a full inbox, so he didn't ignore them, he just didn't realise they were there. Fine, that's all cleared up then.
Surely you see the difference between actually speaking to someone and getting a response to sending something that can just be ignored?
CA wants an answer, picking the phone up and gaining a verbal response be it positive or negative is the easiest way to gain that.
I have consistently expressed our view to Mr Breed in person and over email since I first met him last year.
The Reid article says CSF have made no contact with the club to say they will be unable to continue using the centre. In fact the opposite is the case, Anderson says they were previously talking about a long term deal. That being the case its not surprising they weren't aware. Common courtesy would say CSF should have been keeping the club informed.
Where I work, people sit with hundreds of unread emails on a daily basis. If I want something done by someone I either walk around to them (massive office here at STW) or I call them if they are offsite. You know what happens? I get an answer (whether I like the answer or not).
CSF aren't sitting there with a clear inbox thinking I hope CA emails me today so I can ignore it...
Surely you see the difference between actually speaking to someone and getting a response to sending something that can just be ignored?
CA wants an answer, picking the phone up and gaining a verbal response be it positive or negative is the easiest way to gain that.
Bore off mate, its attitudes like this that let the other parties get away with doing what ever they want
You don't leave a message on voicemail if you're talking about intent to enter into a contractWhere I work, people sit with hundreds of unread emails on a daily basis. If I want something done by someone I either walk around to them (massive office here at STW) or I call them if they are offsite. You know what happens? I get an answer (whether I like the answer or not).
CSF aren't sitting there with a clear inbox thinking I hope CA emails me today so I can ignore it...
It'd be a start wouldn't it?Do you mean like in person?
I have consistently expressed our view to Mr Breed in person and over email since I first met him last year.
But this is a vitally important issue. Why would they ignore two pieces of written communication? Reputable businesses don't just ignore important written communications, do they? I have a feeling if CA had said he'd tried ringing you would be banging on that he should write instead...
Anderson was appointed in November wasn't he? News about a 50m pool at Higgs broke in March so I'd guess you'd be looking at that timeframe.When were they talking about a long term deal though?
But he can't say that can he if csf aren't willing to discuss it?I'd be much happier if CA had said "I've spoken to CSF, we're meeting next week to talk through the club staying at Higgs for the next 5/10/15 years".
Instead I read a report that says "We want to stay and they are ignoring my emails" No timeframe to how long CCFC plan to stay, just a "we want to stay". The same goes for the Ricoh deal.
Missed that bit :bag:Like the bit I quoted where he said:
Hopefully the trust are on the case with that. Although the Telegraph seem to be able to get a quick response from CSF generally so maybe they can get them on the phone and ask some questions.Can the trust contact CSF to get some information on this as Sisu can't seem to get an answer from them.
Yep, as it says here.
CSF will put a statement out later and put in key words like new stadium, tim fisher etc and people will go mad for it. They will then sit back and piss themselves at how easy it is and how people will side with random sports companies over their own football team (not the owners).
"The door is open, the club wanted to move"Hopefully the trust are on the case with that. Although the Telegraph seem to be able to get a quick response from CSF generally so maybe they can get them on the phone and ask some questions.
It's ok you can gloat if they have I guessWe know that they are saying they do, but have they sent a registered letter, turned up at the door/ reception ( TF was quick enough to throw the keys to the stadium onto the reception desk when he wanted to communicate that CCFC were leaving the Ricoh ) or offered a 10 year guarantee subject to an agreement..? No.
I would have been straight down there - even more so if what CA claims is true. It's up to CCFC to chase something they need and want - Wasps obviously are better at that. I hope that they are wide awake now and get into gear, but I suspect they've lost out- again....
Do you believe that it's fine for CSF to pursue other avenues without CCFC having served any notice of intent to leave? Without any consultation with CCFC?We know that they are saying they do, but have they sent a registered letter, turned up at the door/ reception ( TF was quick enough to throw the keys to the stadium onto the reception desk when he wanted to communicate that CCFC were leaving the Ricoh ) or offered a 10 year guarantee subject to an agreement..? No.
I would have been straight down there - even more so if what CA claims is true. It's up to CCFC to chase something they need and want - Wasps obviously are better at that. I hope that they are wide awake now and get into gear, but I suspect they've lost out- again....
It's ok you can gloat if they have I guess
Pretty muchClosed Shop by the sounds of it. They'll just keep ignoring the requests and then it'll be 'oh, wasps have signed to come in instead, we did give you a chance but didn't hear from you'.
Do you believe that it's fine for CSF to pursue other avenues without CCFC having served any notice of intent to leave? Without any consultation with CCFC?
Gloat at what? Another fuck up? I don't think the run of fuck-ups is anything to gloat about. If anything, the positives such as reduced losses, highest position in L1, most points etc., are now being swept away by ineptitude off the field. Nothing to gloat about.... Cheeky of you to suggest it...
I imagine the answer will be "Yes" .Do you believe that it's fine for CSF to pursue other avenues without CCFC having served any notice of intent to leave? Without any consultation with CCFC?
To be honest I just tend to focus on the actual quotes.
The club are now coming out and saying they are trying to sort it long term, saying they dont know why CSF are saying certain things etc. I don't see an issue.
Who has fucked up then? If this is true we have been done overGloat at what? Another fuck up? I don't think the run of fuck-ups is anything to gloat about. If anything, the positives such as reduced losses, highest position in L1, most points etc., are now being swept away by ineptitude off the field. Nothing to gloat about.... Cheeky of you to suggest it...
Anyone that helps, works with or negotiates with the club will have the full force of he council coming down on them.
Even if the individuals at the csf wanted to work with the club it wouldn't happen as the council would make it hell for them and more trouble than its worth.
I can see the same happening with CRFC over the next 12 months, they will cut ties with the football club before the council try and ruin them further.
Is this where you ignore what's actually going on and just have digs at les reid again?Why run the article with no quotes from the Higgs side?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?