Coventry City FC hold stadium talks with Rugby Borough Council (2 Viewers)

[skybluejelly]

I live in Brownsover - far worse places like Admirals estate/ New Bilton/ lots of Bilton for that matter. Knock down the new development in that wasteland that is Cawston . . Best fish and Chippy in Brownsover. So there !

I used to work for RBC and travelled around the borough daily- can't think of any suitable site that would be on the Coventry side - but then SISU won't worry on that score. Maybe there is some old MOD sites that could be freed up .

So does that mean you were a dustman..if you travelled the borough daily

 

---

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

So does that mean you were a dustman..if you travelled the borough daily

I was a secret agent.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Its obvious it would be Rugby, the planning committee there never turn anything down. They are f*cking useless.

Depends if it suits them or not. One thing they're not is useless ;-)

 

[wingy]

So back to topic
What on earth have CCFC been paying CBRE for for two years but are now having a go @ DIY

 

[letsallsingtogether]

So back to topic
What on earth have CCFC been paying CBRE for for two years but are now having a go @ DIY

Maybe they can secure the B @ Q site I've heard they have been struggling could get the bricks thrown in as a sweetener.

 

[rupert_bear]

CCC should offer the land at Courtaulds by the clock tower off the Foleshill Road to Fisher for this wish for stadium, ideal location, plenty of it and in need of re-development. That would test his and SSUs sincerity once and for all.

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

Not sure on the size but ideal location apart from that it is in Coventry and these idiots don't want to build it in Coventry as Fisher has burnt all the bridges here, the only way to move forward is sack the fat lump of shit.

 

[skybluetony176]

Most of Cawston queue up on a Friday night at Brownsover chippy !

You're all full of it. I live in Hillmorton and the only chippy I go out my way for is overslade lane. Best kebabs in the country and by a country mile. Highly recommend the Kofte.

 

[skybluetony176]

So back to topic
What on earth have CCFC been paying CBRE for for two years but are now having a go @ DIY

There's a few sights in Rugby at the moment advertised as ripe for development and CRBE's name is pretty much on every roadside board at those sites so it's not like they don't have contacts at RBC.

 

[oucho]

Anyone else up for a new protest campaign with the aim that the club stays not just in Coventry but at the Ricoh?

 

[Thenose]

Ansty, that falls under RBC

FEARS Rolls-Royce will close its entire Ansty site are mounting following new proposals to outsource more operations, we can exclusively reveal.Staff sources told the Coventry Observer of a company briefing last week regarding future production of fan cases for the family of Trent civil aircraft engines.
Read more: More Rolls-Royce Ansty closure fears as new plan exposed | Coventry Observer

http://www.coventryobserver.co.uk/2...closure-fears-as-new-plan-exposed-130583.html

 

[Otis]

Anyone else up for a new protest campaign with the aim that the club stays not just in Coventry but at the Ricoh?

Good luck with that.

Far too many City fans seemingly hate the Ricoh unfortunately.

I'd definitely be up for it, but I just don't think you would get the groundswell of support. People are making the Ricoh the scapegoat for our having a crap team on the pitch.

 

[Jack Griffin]

CCC should offer the land at Courtaulds by the clock tower off the Foleshill Road to Fisher for this wish for stadium, ideal location, plenty of it and in need of re-development. That would test his and SSUs sincerity once and for all.

Already housing planned there isn't there? That is the score with CCC, any land is for housing, they even want to gobble up the greenbelt, Cllr Maton doesn't seem to understand the public are not with him on that issue.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/700-new-homes-built-former-8430720

 

[robbiethemole]

Its obvious it would be Rugby, the planning committee there never turn anything down. They are f*cking useless.

you are joking aint you?? it took them 30 fecking years to approve the site for J1 and the bowling alley etc, and nearly as long to okay the Western relief rd!!!

besides, I have lived in Brownover for 25 years, bought this house new and it's a fairly quiet area and now the old pub is a new tesco express there is very little anti-social behaviour.

So there!!:welcome:

 

[Grendel]

Good luck with that.

Far too many City fans seemingly hate the Ricoh unfortunately.

I'd definitely be up for it, but I just don't think you would get the groundswell of support. People are making the Ricoh the scapegoat for our having a crap team on the pitch.

It's nothing to do with the teams performance.

It's to do with a realisation that without access to all income (which is the reason wasps stated that a rental arrangement can't work) the club will forever be a league one or at best struggling championship club.

The other factor is as time moves on there will be a move to brand the stadium more and more for themselves.

A new owner is needed but only one that agrees a strategy of getting out as quickly as possible.

 

[skybluetony176]

It's nothing to do with the teams performance.

It's to do with a realisation that without access to all income (which is the reason wasps stated that a rental arrangement can't work) the club will forever be a league one or at best struggling championship club.

The other factor is as time moves on there will be a move to brand the stadium more and more for themselves.

A new owner is needed but only one that agrees a strategy of getting out as quickly as possible.

And what if that owner doesn't exist? Which apparently they don't.

Should we stick with SISU? SISU are a bigger stumbling block than the arrangement at the Ricoh where success are concerned. Their short term make do thinking is first in the queue of what's killing the club.

 

[Grendel]

And what if that owner doesn't exist? Which apparently they don't.

Should we stick with SISU? SISU are a bigger stumbling block than the arrangement at the Ricoh where success are concerned. Their short term make do thinking is first in the queue of what's killing the club.

Depends if at best your ambition is to be occasionally in the championship facing inevitable relegation but spend 90% of its existence in league one or two.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

It's nothing to do with the teams performance.

It's to do with a realisation that without access to all income (which is the reason wasps stated that a rental arrangement can't work) the club will forever be a league one or at best struggling championship club.

The other factor is as time moves on there will be a move to brand the stadium more and more for themselves.

A new owner is needed but only one that agrees a strategy of getting out as quickly as possible.

Brand!!!
They can't even run a fucking shop how will they make any money from a stadium in the middle of nowhere?
You make out itis the only way but they will still be renting and will have to pay off the debt of the nee ground but at least we will be cash flow positive.
With a team no better then we have now a stadium no better then the Ricoh, with yet another ground that's to big for the fan base.
They would be better of buying Rugby Town and using their ground, would be plenty big enough for there needs.
Cod even rename the main stand as the Tim Fisher stand you could then sit there in peace.

 

[skybluetony176]

Depends if at best your ambition is to be occasionally in the championship facing inevitable relegation but spend 90% of its existence in league one or two.

You didn't answer the question. And what you've just described is all SISU have to offer. New ground or not. We're seeing the "benefit's" of SISU's short term make do policy already under TM. Yes the football is better but the nett result is the same. You're putting the cart before the horse. Step 1 is get rid of SISU, we're only going backwards with them.

 

[Grendel]

Brand!!!
They can't even run a fucking shop how will they make any money from a stadium in the middle of nowhere?
You make out itis the only way but they will still be renting and will have to pay off the debt of the nee ground but at least we will be cash flow positive.
With a team no better then we have now a stadium no better then the Ricoh, with yet another ground that's to big for the fan base.
They would be better of buying Rugby Town and using their ground, would be plenty big enough for there needs.
Cod even rename the main stand as the Tim Fisher stand you could then sit there in peace.

I'm talking about the wasps branding which will continue to alienate our fan base.

 

[Grendel]

You didn't answer the question. And what you've just described is all SISU have to offer. New ground or not. We're seeing the "benefit's" of SISU's short term make do policy already under TM. Yes the football is better but the nett result is the same. You're putting the cart before the horse. Step 1 is get rid of SISU, we're only going backwards with them.

I have - also the much lauded football expert agrees with me - with no plan and land for a new stadium we will not attract serious purchasers for the club.

 

[Otis]

It's nothing to do with the teams performance.

It's to do with a realisation that without access to all income (which is the reason wasps stated that a rental arrangement can't work) the club will forever be a league one or at best struggling championship club.

The other factor is as time moves on there will be a move to brand the stadium more and more for themselves.

A new owner is needed but only one that agrees a strategy of getting out as quickly as possible.

Disagree.

Some people are definitely saying the Ricoh is crap based on it being 'soulless and like a graveyard.'

Well it is only those two things because the product on the pitch has been so bad. Some people hate the Ricoh because we keep losing there.

 

[olderskyblue]

So they had met them when Fisher said it last week?

Well, that depends.... The SCG Meeting was on 5th March, and this was in the minutes...

TF had been very open at a recent Stadium Advisory Group meeting, and provided clear insights regarding potential stadium site work – including dialogue with Rugby Borough Council.

TF then read a statement from CBRE, the property consultants, which highlighted that discussions had taken place with Rugby Borough Council on potential stadium sites and their deliverability

So, he had been very clear at a SAG meeting that talks with RBC had happened.. I don't know when that meeting was held, but clearly there was only days for the meeting with RBC, and then the SAG, for it to have been held in March...

Of course, it doesn't explain the other times he has said talks have already been held with RBC.

I wouldn't go trusting every word he says just yet...

 

[oldskyblue58]

Hopefully this link will work and give the details of the RBC boundaries

http://mapit.mysociety.org/area/2459.html

Not convinced there is anything on the CCC boundary that meets requirements without a lot of infra structure expenditure or is not classed as greenbelt or wouldn't bring strong objections

On top of that

we have consistently been told over the last 2 years talks had happened. It seems all the evidence available says they haven't until March 2015 and even then are speculative and tentative
If we are to believe the article then there was no progress on anything at the March 2015 meeting(s) with RBC, so the situation in reality remains exactly the same - the club has no viable site at this time

If I were being cynical I might think that the talks at the clubs request only took place to counter the FOI's being done

Have the FL turned round to the club and demanded to see proper progress ? :thinking about:

 

[Godiva]

Have the FL turned round to the club and demanded to see proper progress ? :thinking about:

Why would they?
The club is back - I can't see any reason why FL would be even remotely interested never mind demanding progress.

 

[oldskyblue58]

perhaps because technically CCFC have one year or so left on the temporary day rental agreement - the option for 2 more years has not yet been exercised. League rules require clubs to have a minimum 10 year agreement at some point that will need to be complied with. Do we know the details of the option is it at CCFC's discretion or not? What financial implications are there to exercising the option? So the FL might well monitor the situation closely so that they can highlight early any potential problems from a problem club that threaten the integrity of their overall competition.

Not to mention the owners saying they are not staying at the Ricoh - the FL might want to know how that is going ............ seems not too well......:thinking about:

 

[Godiva]

perhaps because technically CCFC have one year or so left on the temporary day rental agreement - the option for 2 more years has not yet been exercised. League rules require clubs to have a minimum 10 year agreement at some point that will need to be complied with. Do we know the details of the option is it at CCFC's discretion or not? What financial implications are there to exercising the option? So the FL might well monitor the situation closely so that they can highlight early any potential problems from a problem club that threaten the integrity of their overall competition.

Not to mention the owners saying they are not staying at the Ricoh - the FL might want to know how that is going ............

Yes, that makes sense.

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

Yes, that makes sense.

Back to Northampton then? Or would they use one of the empty grounds Rushden (is it still empty and there?) or Hinckley?

 

[ccfcway]

we need access to revenues, blah blah blah....

Over 6 months now since they were able to sell a club shirt...

They cant get the basics right, let alone run a multi facility stadium

 

[oldskyblue58]

we need access to revenues, blah blah blah....

Over 6 months now since they were able to sell a club shirt...

They cant get the basics right, let alone run a multi facility stadium

This bothers me too. The costs at the club seem to be being slashed but isn't the other side of that maximising the incomes we can have. That simply does not seem to be very effective at all. If the shop is a fair reflection of the overall marketing strategy then it is a shambles.

As you say we are repeatedly told how income is vital to the club and its ability to put players on the pitch and yet when it comes down to the actual operation of things like the shop doesn't back that up at all...... why?

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

This bothers me too. The costs at the club seem to be being slashed but isn't the other side of that maximising the incomes we can have. That simply does not seem to be very effective at all. If the shop is a fair reflection of the overall marketing strategy then it is a shambles.

As you say we are repeatedly told how income is vital to the club and its ability to put players on the pitch and yet when it comes down to the actual operation of things like the shop doesn't back that up at all......

We don't need a shop we the table!:thinking about:

 

[Ashdown]

we need access to revenues, blah blah blah....

Over 6 months now since they were able to sell a club shirt...

They cant get the basics right, let alone run a multi facility stadium

Quite it's all a load of tosh. If 'Godiva' is right though and they are still being remunerated for screwing up a football club, they'll blag it out for as long as they can until they have to admit to their investors that they've blown their cash on a car crash of a football club.

 

[Captain Dart]

perhaps because technically CCFC have one year or so left on the temporary day rental agreement - the option for 2 more years has not yet been exercised. League rules require clubs to have a minimum 10 year agreement at some point that will need to be complied with. Do we know the details of the option is it at CCFC's discretion or not? What financial implications are there to exercising the option? So the FL might well monitor the situation closely so that they can highlight early any potential problems from a problem club that threaten the integrity of their overall competition.

Not to mention the owners saying they are not staying at the Ricoh - the FL might want to know how that is going ............ seems not too well......:thinking about:

Well put.

 

[chiefdave]

They can't even run a fucking shop how will they make any money from a stadium in the middle of nowhere?

They've made a right mess of running the football club for sure but are they generally incompetent? How do their other investments perform? Genuine question and I have no idea what the answer is, just wondered if the mess they've made here is the exception to their usual level of success.

 

[skybluetony176]

They've made a right mess of running the football club for sure but are they generally incompetent? How do their other investments perform? Genuine question and I have no idea what the answer is, just wondered if the mess they've made here is the exception to their usual level of success.

I suspect that they are having to be alot more hands on than they are with other investments. For example they have shares in an Eastern European telecommunications company. I doubt that they've had to install a complete management system in there like they've tried and failed to do at CCFC.