Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
I'm sure they're not in the loop. Coventry Observer haven't either.
Formal Planning Objection from CCFC (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Orca
- Start date
As far as I can see it's down to CSF to manage that.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Nick
Administrator
See you in the pen and wig! Cans of breaker all roundwhy are you buying the drinks then Nick?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
He's writing his book this week isn't he?
CCFC_Charlie
Well-Known Member
Les Reid has been talking about it https://twitter.com/Lesreidpolitics
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
You were too slow, already started
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Senior Vick from Alicante
Well-Known Member
The bloke cant help having a dig at any one that has an opinion on the owners that differs to him. Bad journalism to say what he has, all city supporters realise the acadamys importance. We all know the history of the owners versus the council and we are entitled to apportion blame accordingly its called free speach which is exactly why he left the telegraph.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
He was unfairly dismissed from CET for expressing free speech you tool
Senior Vick from Alicante
Well-Known Member
Thats just what i said you narcissistic cock.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It was on his twitter account he made the comment - as for the comment about good journalism - I'd prefer him than the slithering Council whore Simon Gilbert - wouldn't you?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
It is about time that CCFC got a response in so I am glad to see that. It sets out in my opinion very good reasons as to why the Academy is important to CCFC and the City of Coventry
Some thoughts, and a lot of it is just devils advocate and deliberately contrary so read it that way
- The letter reads like a public justification of the academy the letter would be useful if it stays and useful if it doesn't
- It also reads as if setting the scene for what follows, namely court action but on what.....?
- why did it take so long?
- why respond after the planning department had made their recommendation and are the planners duty bound to consider it if it is late?
- the points made about the Academy are good but in what way does it address planning issues - so if not most of it is irrelevant to the planning issue
- that site has been a sports ground for donkeys years before AHC - I used to play football there MSA Sports Ground - so is green belt such a great issue?
- the details of the offer on usage of the kicking barn whilst interesting are not planning issues they are operational?
- actually the site was achieved because of the community usage not because of CCFC being there, but certainly it was always intended CCFC Academy would be there
- Would it suit CSF/Wasps to see the agreement wind down and end? only 11 months to wait
- would it suit CCFC owners to see it end
- so the £652k from PL is central to the business plan, was there an increase this year? is it paid in advance or arrears?
- is there a legal duty for CSF to consult a day renter of the pitches, there is no lease or leaseholder rights?
- In essence does the usage of the site change - it will still be for the community and elite sport
- is more or less community usage available if there is a pool and wasps kicking barn than now?
- whose responsibility is it to ensure the viability of Academy?
- will the SBITC events be affected if there are still pitches available?
- when did the club first say they formally wanted to stay? months ago could be only March 2016
- when did CSF inform club that they would not seek a new arrangement of the old agreement?
- do CSF/Wasps/CCC have a legal responsibility to ensure the future of the Academy?
- what kind of agreement to stay is being sought by CCFC - user agreement again or something more?
- Wasps are offering a room rent much like anyone else could have aren't they the full details are irrelevant, but they are not offering rights over property etc the actual final terms are not relevant to the application only there being a perception of intention is. Nowhere near a full contract on any level
- isn't the process of novation a legal requirement when a landlord changes ? not a precursor to talks?
- isn't the simple fact that there is no usage of the Academy at AHC past 30-06-2017 and CCFC can't get round that and miscalculated badly?
- isn't it a conspiracy by CSF and Wasps to force CCFC out? They simply have to wait for the agreement to end and that opens up the planning and damages CCFC further
- do CSF have to make CCFC aware of future plans for the indoor pitch if CCFC only contracted till 30-06-2017? In any case the details of proposal outline have been in the public domain for 2 years surely decision makers needed to plan/act accordingly
- are CCFC in a position to make demands and stipulations?
- if this is the precursor to legal action is that the real reason CA wont attend talks?
- Is this just PR from both sides (objection & reply/offer)
- is there a flexible alternative using other sites that keeps the Academy (a) at Cat 2 and (b) in Coventry. If so the basis of much of the objection is what exactly?
- Do CSF or wasps have to deal with CCFC/SISU on anything at all, or can they simply decline or even ignore - the answer to that is troubling
Worryingly from all that, I do not feel that the letter is a particularly good objection to the planning on the site. It is clearly emotive and puts a very good case for the Academy and clearly places the blame for any potential failure on others. So is it something for the fans public consumption? To what purpose? and what follows?
remember I am playing devils advocate. The Academy should be at AHC not anyone else.
Some thoughts, and a lot of it is just devils advocate and deliberately contrary so read it that way
- The letter reads like a public justification of the academy the letter would be useful if it stays and useful if it doesn't
- It also reads as if setting the scene for what follows, namely court action but on what.....?
- why did it take so long?
- why respond after the planning department had made their recommendation and are the planners duty bound to consider it if it is late?
- the points made about the Academy are good but in what way does it address planning issues - so if not most of it is irrelevant to the planning issue
- that site has been a sports ground for donkeys years before AHC - I used to play football there MSA Sports Ground - so is green belt such a great issue?
- the details of the offer on usage of the kicking barn whilst interesting are not planning issues they are operational?
- actually the site was achieved because of the community usage not because of CCFC being there, but certainly it was always intended CCFC Academy would be there
- Would it suit CSF/Wasps to see the agreement wind down and end? only 11 months to wait
- would it suit CCFC owners to see it end
- so the £652k from PL is central to the business plan, was there an increase this year? is it paid in advance or arrears?
- is there a legal duty for CSF to consult a day renter of the pitches, there is no lease or leaseholder rights?
- In essence does the usage of the site change - it will still be for the community and elite sport
- is more or less community usage available if there is a pool and wasps kicking barn than now?
- whose responsibility is it to ensure the viability of Academy?
- will the SBITC events be affected if there are still pitches available?
- when did the club first say they formally wanted to stay? months ago could be only March 2016
- when did CSF inform club that they would not seek a new arrangement of the old agreement?
- do CSF/Wasps/CCC have a legal responsibility to ensure the future of the Academy?
- what kind of agreement to stay is being sought by CCFC - user agreement again or something more?
- Wasps are offering a room rent much like anyone else could have aren't they the full details are irrelevant, but they are not offering rights over property etc the actual final terms are not relevant to the application only there being a perception of intention is. Nowhere near a full contract on any level
- isn't the process of novation a legal requirement when a landlord changes ? not a precursor to talks?
- isn't the simple fact that there is no usage of the Academy at AHC past 30-06-2017 and CCFC can't get round that and miscalculated badly?
- isn't it a conspiracy by CSF and Wasps to force CCFC out? They simply have to wait for the agreement to end and that opens up the planning and damages CCFC further
- do CSF have to make CCFC aware of future plans for the indoor pitch if CCFC only contracted till 30-06-2017? In any case the details of proposal outline have been in the public domain for 2 years surely decision makers needed to plan/act accordingly
- are CCFC in a position to make demands and stipulations?
- if this is the precursor to legal action is that the real reason CA wont attend talks?
- Is this just PR from both sides (objection & reply/offer)
- is there a flexible alternative using other sites that keeps the Academy (a) at Cat 2 and (b) in Coventry. If so the basis of much of the objection is what exactly?
- Do CSF or wasps have to deal with CCFC/SISU on anything at all, or can they simply decline or even ignore - the answer to that is troubling
Worryingly from all that, I do not feel that the letter is a particularly good objection to the planning on the site. It is clearly emotive and puts a very good case for the Academy and clearly places the blame for any potential failure on others. So is it something for the fans public consumption? To what purpose? and what follows?
remember I am playing devils advocate. The Academy should be at AHC not anyone else.
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It was proved the CET suppressed statements and delayed statements at the behest of the council. As a journalist Reid proved he was above that and challenged it.
Gilbert is not a journalist. He just scribes what his lord and masters tell him to. He peddled his bias drivel on here and as soon as truth regarding suppression came out fled never to be seen again.
There is no comparison between these people.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Isn't the point being made that Reid was prevented from running stories which might have shown Wasps / CCC in a bad light or at least given people some time to examine what was going on. All came out in court that the CT editor at the time, who mysteriously left of his own free will at the time Reid's case was settled, had done a deal with CCC to suppress stories on the Ricoh sale.
No comparison!!!! That's is in your opinion. They either both have the right to freedom or speech or they don't.
I don't care if they have biased either way it does not effect the end result, it's also up to the individual to decide what he or she believes when reading articles.
I don't care if they have biased either way it does not effect the end result, it's also up to the individual to decide what he or she believes when reading articles.
Maybe the case, but every journo has an agenda no matter which way you look at it. The right for all is to have an opinion as on here and for all to read and make a decision to react or ignore.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I really hope that this doesn't go to a JR. At the end of the day it will probably be as successful at saving the academy status as it was at gaining us the Ricoh.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
So you think it was right for the CT to suppress stories for the benefit of CCC and Wasps?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Can't say I know much about twitter, don't think I've ever been on it once. But hasn't there been people on here reporting that LR deletes any opinions that oppose his own?
Also, wasn't Les long gone by the time Wasps turned up? Be a bit difficult to suppress stories that haven't happened yet.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
You can't delete other peoples tweets so if anyone is saying he's been doing that they're mistaken.
It was to do with the bailout of ACL wasn't it which cleared the way for Wasps to come in. All came out in court. Sure someone can dig up the relevant thread.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Fair enough. Thought I'd seen people claiming that. Like I said, don't do twitter so have no idea personally how it works.
I'd say CCFC leaving cleared the way for wasps myself. I don't think even LR has claimed he knew wasps were lurking or that the bailout was done so wasps could come in so my point stands on suppressing stories for wasps. I don't think he was and by the time wasp stories were there to report he wasn't at the CT.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No Tony he blocks people - as does any councillor you ever try to question.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Spot on Tony. A reporter should report, Not try to tell people which stories to believe and everything that comes out of his mouth is Gospel. Which is what he tried to do on his JS interview. And yes Tony, it's true about "Blocking" anyone that had a differing view to his... I was one, and as Senior Vick has said about Grendel LR is a narcissistic cock too.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
So you're saying he suppresses freedom of speech as much as the council then. Thanks for clearing that up.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
wonder if the club would care to expand further on this from their website
"Coventry City FC have also written to Sport England and the FA to keep them fully apprised of our objections, as well as our our plans and intentions regarding the future of the Academy.
"Coventry City FC have also written to Sport England and the FA to keep them fully apprised of our objections, as well as our our plans and intentions regarding the future of the Academy.
skyblueinBaku
Well-Known Member
I doubt that they would expand on those underlined parts, OSB. The last plan they had was to build a new stadium - look how that turned out. Planning obviously isn't their strong point.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Hopefully it will force some discussion on accommodating both teams. Wasps seem to be putting stuff in writing on charges and availability.
Does need a minuted meeting to get this sorted though and this may not be required by planning guidelines.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
It's irrelevant. This site will be determined by planning guidelines.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
CSF will administer it for them during these times.
Nick
Administrator
Where is that said?
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
They have now, about 30mins after your post.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-submit-objection-wasps-11681483
No I don't believe they have the right. But if you know they have done this then it's proving my point. You don't have to believe what you read you have to make your mind up if it's valid or relates to you or your belief dystem, if it's not then move on. The truth will always come out, no matter who pushes the agenda.
