Yes and now there is no block and produced an outline plan.
I mean what else is she doing on our board?
Yes and now there is no block and produced an outline plan.It didn't, it was in the news in 2014 when it was blocked when they tried.
Errm, not sticking up for her, but wasn't she the leader of the council and would be expected to be there to cut the tape?That's not my attitude at all, is it.
A retirement village with a sports stadium on one side and busy railway line on the other, it was never going to be tranquil for people's salad days was it? Then look at the cost, "...prices for 40% shared ownership one bedroom properties start from £69,980..."
To me it seems the ones 'f**king' our senior citizens are the ones responsible for developing a completely inappropriate site - now let's see who was involved:
Oh... what a surprise!
Good point.
Be interested to know where this covenant originated from and why.
Uncanny!That's not my attitude at all, is it.
A retirement village with a sports stadium on one side and busy railway line on the other, it was never going to be tranquil for people's salad days was it? Then look at the cost, "...prices for 40% shared ownership one bedroom properties start from £69,980..."
To me it seems the ones 'f**king' our senior citizens are the ones responsible for developing a completely inappropriate site - now let's see who was involved:
Oh... what a surprise!
You could probably form a decent partnership with them, as they already work with SBITC I think.
So why after a year since the story broke is the club not meeting with them and selling them the idea as they have with Ryton residents within weeks of that story breaking?
Maybe because sharp hasn't bought the lease yet
I get where you are going with this, but see the post above mine.
So why after a year since the story broke is the club not meeting with them and selling them the idea as they have with Ryton residents within weeks of that story breaking?
See the post below yours
In which way is that?I wouldn't be happy with that, it's effectively like Wasps being here.
No one has brought the Ryton freehold for development either yet. Hasn't stopped the club moving that project forward though has it?
You do realise that things happen before stories break, right?
They HAD to meet with residents in Ryton didn't they and the parish stuff.
I'd hazard a guess that CCFC and CRFC would meet with them and local residents
In which way is that?
Wasps were moved nearly 100 miles. They don't belong in Coventry.
We will have moved 70 miles. 35 miles to Northampton and 35 miles back.
And there must be something in it for CRFC. They would be doing it through choice. Saying that it must have looked as though we left the Ricoh through choice.
Yes, and by getting planning permission on ryton it increases the value of thr land. Completely different to the Butts. Apples and Oranges.That's because it's already owned isn't it?
Wasps moved to Coventry without an invite to talks from CCFC. If it ever does happen CCFC will have made full agreement with CRFC. So I still don't get your point.I mean if CCFC strolled in at the Butts and took it all over etc. It wouldn't sit right.
Wasps moved to Coventry without an invite to talks from CCFC. If it ever does happen CCFC will have made full agreement with CRFC. So I still don't get your point.
Errm, not sticking up for her, but wasn't she the leader of the council and would be expected to be there to cut the tape?
Also, could I just ask, was she leader when the scheme was first mooted? I would guess not as these things are years in the making aren't they.
That's because it's already owned isn't it?
I'm not going against anything until I see details. If it ever did get off the ground it could be good for the city of Coventry.I know what you mean, but with agreement with 1 person.
Even if Wasps had agreed it with Seppalla or Fisher, it doesn't mean we would like it as fans etc.
Males no difference where planning is concerned. I very much doubt that it will be CCFC, SISU or ARVO stepping in as the housing developer. They'll sell it on knowing what can and can't be done. Should they be getting involved with the redevelopment of the BPA with financial commitments etc. before they know what can and can't be done? How are they going to find that out? That's right, consultation. With both the local authorities and residents. Such as they have at Ryton. It isn't all that long ago we had we've identified two sites, we're doing impact statements for the highways and environment agencies blah blah blah. Yes that was proven by to be less than truthful by FOI requests but the element of truth that was in there was the process that you have to go through to ascertain if something is viable before you start going ahead with land purchase etc. This is consultation that would have to have happened before a site was purchased for a new stadium, this is why consultation is being done before Ryton can be sold for development and if anyone was serious about the BPA at CCFC consultation would be happening or already have happened. We have now seen how quickly they can move when they want something to happen. I'm sure you can see the very stark difference to what is happening (or not happening) with the BPA.
but you blame the CET and CCC for what you say will happen? :bag:No idea of whether she was leader when the scheme was first proposed. If it's like other things in this city we'll probably never really know who first proposed the idea and when, but if it becomes controversial the CT will present a load of contrived and made up 'facts' to cover the council's b**ckside.
Interestingly, Lucas isn't one of the people 'cutting' the ribbon with the amusingly over-sized scissors. One of the 'scissor sisters' is Cllr Noonan (who I think was Mayor at the time), I don't know who the other one is.
I'm not going to lie, that thought gave me a semi on.I'm not going against anything until I see details. If it ever did get off the ground it could be good for the city of Coventry.
Joint season tickets getting more people to watch a proper Coventry rugger side in a bigger and better stadium. More money maybe making promotion more realistic for them. People going to see them instead of Wasps. Wasps fuck off back to London as nobody wants to watch them. We get the Ricoh back and CRFC get a better stadium.
We can but dream.
I'm not going against anything until I see details. If it ever did get off the ground it could be good for the city of Coventry.
Joint season tickets getting more people to watch a proper Coventry rugger side in a bigger and better stadium. More money maybe making promotion more realistic for them. People going to see them instead of Wasps. Wasps fuck off back to London as nobody wants to watch them. We get the Ricoh back and CRFC get a better stadium.
We can but dream.
So no idea
but you blame the CET and CCC for what you say will happen? :bag:
Perhaps it's me, but why do I get the feeling if SISU go to the BPA, in the not too distant future, CRFC will get shafted!
That's not what I wrote, is it?
No idea of whether she was leader when the scheme was first proposed. If it's like other things in this city we'll probably never really know who first proposed the idea and when, but if it becomes controversial the CT will present a load of contrived and made up 'facts' to cover the council's b**ckside.
Interestingly, Lucas isn't one of the people 'cutting' the ribbon with the amusingly over-sized scissors. One of the 'scissor sisters' is Cllr Noonan (who I think was Mayor at the time), I don't know who the other one is.
Surely they need to half find out what's going on with the lease though? ie if Millerchip tries to put a restriction in.
Surely that's one of the big reasons consultation should be happening? Give CM a reason to sell, sell him the idea and get things moving. No different to why it's all happened at Ryton. Makes it easier to sell. Same with CCC, sell them the idea. Same with local residents, get them on board and it makes the sell to CCC easier. This is a process that should be well underway. They should be talking to CCC, The Highways agency, The environment agency, local residents etc. if they're serious. If.
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?