Forum Statement on New Stadium Announcement

mark82

Moderator
Jul 15, 2010
12,252
4,924
263
South Yorkshire
"As supporters of Coventry City we are delighted by the joint statement from CCFC and Warwick University. It is all the more pleasing given the assurances we received earlier this year from Dave Boddy & Joy Seppala on the priority that CCFC and Sisu were placing on having a stadium of our own and their desire to have continued close relationships between the supporters, the club and the owners.

In the short term, we hope that efforts to return to the Ricoh Arena in the interim period continue to be prioritised. It remains of the utmost importance to Coventry City fans for the club to be playing in the city of Coventry during this period. We continue to expect all involved parties to continue to work towards achieving this common aim, however, if this is not possible then transparency is needed as to the reasons why an agreement has not been made. Any deal to return to the Ricoh Arena must not put the long term future of the club at risk.

We look forward to seeing further plans for the development of the stadium in the near future and we hope that this process will be carried out in collaboration with, and support from, all fans groups.

On behalf of the Sky Blues Talk community"

Any objections?
 
Last edited:

Skyblueweeman

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2011
7,602
5,192
263
Portsmouth
Good work
 

Bugsy

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2012
761
370
213
Coventry




No comment lol. But the statement is good btw...PUSB
 

SBbucks

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2012
177
163
43
"As supporters of Coventry City we are delighted by the joint statement from CCFC and Warwick University. It is all the more pleasing given the assurances we received earlier this year from Dave Boddy & Joy Seppala on the priority that CCFC and Sisu were placing on having a stadium of our own and their desire to have continued close relationships between the supporters, the club and the owners.

In the short term, we hope that efforts to return to the Ricoh Arena in the interim period continue to be prioritised. It remains of the utmost importance to Coventry City fans for the club to be playing in the city of Coventry during this period. We continue to expect all involved parties to continue to work towards achieving this common aim, however, if this is not possible then transparency is needed as to the reasons why an agreement has not been made. Any deal to return to the Ricoh Arena must not put the long term future of the club at risk.

We look forward to seeing further plans for the development of the stadium in the near future and we hope that this process will be carried out in collaboration with, and support from, all fans groups.

Pete Griffiths & Mark Dimmock
On behalf of the Sky Blues Talk community"

Any objections?
Perfect, go for it.
 

Macca1987

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2016
72
63
18
Well done both, sets out the feelings of many, both the excitement of the announcement tailored with the need for transparency to where we will be playing until the stadium is built and why, that's all I ask from our owners as a fan
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2012
17,328
6,772
313
Nick - given the broad agreement on here Ive sent it to telegraph and observer and Cwr. Could you tweet it Nick?
 

covcity4life

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2010
27,605
8,659
313
What Ricoh deal would harm the long term future of the club? Are we talking about the indemnity? Why not name it? So tired of weasel language from all sides in this. Needs transparency and clarity. Say what you mean.
Council bot triggered

That said i agree we dont have to stick to their statement rules. Just say indemnity and no longer keep it hush hush
 

Nick

Administrator
Feb 25, 2008
113,489
36,167
1,063
Coventry
What Ricoh deal would harm the long term future of the club? Are we talking about the indemnity? Why not name it? So tired of weasel language from all sides in this. Needs transparency and clarity. Say what you mean.
Any deal to return to the Ricoh Arena must not put the long term future of the club at risk.
It's pretty simple really.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2011
27,406
18,070
263
Coventry, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
It's pretty simple really.
It’s not simple is it? It’s vague language that could mean a million things to a million people. We’re the one party in this that can actually say what we mean and aren’t restricted by lawyers and bullshit, just sad to see us adding more nonsense to the pile. Look how much time is spent on here arguing the details of “what exactly is legals” “what exactly is being indemnified” etc etc. If we want the indemnity stopping why not say that? Instead of giving a catch all get out for any breakdown in negotiations.

There will be people reading who don’t know about it, as you yourself admit the media hasn’t done a good job informing people. Here’s a chance to pique their interest and get them on board. Instead they’ll go “well obviously” and be none the wiser.

Council bot triggered

That said i agree we dont have to stick to their statement rules. Just say indemnity and no longer keep it hush hush
So... I’m a council bot but you agree with me?? Are you coming out as a council bot?
 

Nick

Administrator
Feb 25, 2008
113,489
36,167
1,063
Coventry
Not really, it just means there shouldn't be a deal that would negatively impact the club. You agree with that surely?

It doesn't even say about legals because it says "anything".
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2011
27,406
18,070
263
Coventry, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
Not really, it just means there shouldn't be a deal that would negatively impact the club. You agree with that surely?

It doesn't even say about legals because it says "anything".
It’s a generic statement that means anything. I’m genuinely stunned that your finely tuned bullshit detector seems to be on the blink here.

We can argue all day (and do) about what deal exactly would “put the long term future of the club at risk”. No one is arguing for such a deal, at worst they just don’t think their favoured deal would put the long term future of the club at risk.

I get that this is your baby and you’re defensive, I’m just expressing my disappointment at more FUD and nonsense being introduced into the debate when there was a chance for clarity with a side effect of informing people out of the loop. I’m sure people were just trying to sound posh and didn’t intend it, but that’s why they’re called unintended consequences.
 

Nick

Administrator
Feb 25, 2008
113,489
36,167
1,063
Coventry
It’s a generic statement that means anything. I’m genuinely stunned that your finely tuned bullshit detector seems to be on the blink here.

We can argue all day (and do) about what deal exactly would “put the long term future of the club at risk”. No one is arguing for such a deal, at worst they just don’t think their favoured deal would put the long term future of the club at risk.

I get that this is your baby and you’re defensive, I’m just expressing my disappointment at more FUD and nonsense being introduced into the debate when there was a chance for clarity with a side effect of informing people out of the look. I’m sure people were just trying to sound posh and didn’t intend it, but that’s why they’re called unintended consequences.
What's my baby? Pete and Mark drew up the statement, nothing to do with me.

It's not really nonsense either, it's saying that if a deal at the Ricoh shouldn't put any long term risk to CCFC. That's common sense. It doesn't say "drop the legals", it is purposely generic so that people can't try and use semantics.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Sep 19, 2011
55,394
14,641
763
It’s a generic statement that means anything. I’m genuinely stunned that your finely tuned bullshit detector seems to be on the blink here.

We can argue all day (and do) about what deal exactly would “put the long term future of the club at risk”. No one is arguing for such a deal, at worst they just don’t think their favoured deal would put the long term future of the club at risk.

I get that this is your baby and you’re defensive, I’m just expressing my disappointment at more FUD and nonsense being introduced into the debate when there was a chance for clarity with a side effect of informing people out of the loop. I’m sure people were just trying to sound posh and didn’t intend it, but that’s why they’re called unintended consequences.
A 10 year deal would harm the club if there was a severe penalty clause to exit - that would be a clause that has zero to do with indemnity
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2012
17,328
6,772
313
A 10 year deal would harm the club if there was a severe penalty clause to exit - that would be a clause that has zero to do with indemnity
Yep that true as well as the indemnity as well as I think it can be argued that losing millions of pounds of revenue from ticket sales falls into this category too. Whilst negotiations are ongoing I want to give everything a chance before calling parties out on specific things.

It’s reasonable to ask but I’m sure mark wasn’t and I certainly wasn’t thinking the only issue was agreeing to sign an indemnity
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2011
27,406
18,070
263
Coventry, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
A 10 year deal would harm the club if there was a severe penalty clause to exit - that would be a clause that has zero to do with indemnity
But wait. I thought it was very clear that it meant the indemnity.

You’re proving my point. I could argue any short term deal without another ground moving forward harms the long term future of the club. Literally no one wants a deal that harms the long term future of the club. The issue is we disagree on what deals cause what harm.

TBH it doesn’t really matter, it’s not like anyone’s going to be sat at the negotiating table going “wait, before we sign does this meet the expectations of SBT??”
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanadianCCFC

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2011
27,406
18,070
263
Coventry, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
No it means anything that could damage the club long term, that could include the indemnity as one thing. Not solely that.

It is you who is going on about the indemnity.
I asked if that’s what it meant and thought if that’s what we want then we should mention it outright as a chance to inform people.

You may as well have put “no deals that involve Godzilla eating children” if I means what you say, which is basically nothing anyone would ever disagree with. The implication is someone is suggesting such a deal, otherwise why mention it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bernie Rhodes Nose

Frostie

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2011
1,562
1,349
163
Literally no one wants a deal that harms the long term future of the club. The issue is we disagree on what deals cause what harm.
Which is why the statement covers all bases.

If it just referred to the indemnity then it would imply we're ok with other things that don't make commercial sense for the club;
Break clauses, excessive rent increases or maintenance & upkeep costs etc etc.
 

Nick

Administrator
Feb 25, 2008
113,489
36,167
1,063
Coventry
I asked if that’s what it meant and thought if that’s what we want then we should mention it outright as a chance to inform people.

You may as well have put “no deals that involve Godzilla eating children” if I means what you say, which is basically nothing anyone would ever disagree with. The implication is someone is suggesting such a deal, otherwise why mention it?
Would be a bit pointless to try and think up every possibility and list them all in a statement when most people would agree that any deal shouldn't harm the club long term.

"Any" covers any possibility.