I told you all Mowbray had his hands tied. I also told you all CA was a decent man but wasn't being backed by SISU. I told you all Mowbray and Venus had a interview at RUFC. There's a hell of a lot of lies flying around, and none of them are coming from me!
Sometimes I just give up responding because the amount of effort it takes to get all of my points across about why people are talking rubbish, just isn't worth it on a phone
To be fair, it was bawtryneal who had the interview with RUFC, you just backed him up.
And I agree with your comment about CA. I met him week before last and had a 15 minute chat with him. Nice bloke.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Wrong SBWM. Bawtryneal is RUFC's Kit Sponsor. Mowbray and Venus both had interviews there.
Wrong SBWM. Bawtryneal is RUFC's Kit Sponsor. Mowbray and Venus both had interviews there.
That's what the guy claimed in his thread - both of them
the fact that the pitches aren't available to the public makes it all even more ambiguous.This is the Ryton thread, right?!
I did a bit of digging on the involvement of Sport England in Planning Applications (https://www.sportengland.org/facili...development-management/planning-applications/).
There are lots of links and policy documents, but to try and summarise, an application which resulted in the loss of sports pitches would oblige the Local Planning Authority (in this case Rugby Borough Council) to consult Sport England. A condition of any permission would almost certainly be to provide replacement pitches in “a suitable location”. On top of that, one of the questions would be “Does the application also include the appropriate replacement of all necessary ancillary provision?” – so on that basis, Sport England might ask for ALL the facilities to be properly replaced as a condition of approval. Actually, there’s not a huge amount at Ryton is there? In any case, Sport England are only a consultee, and the planners would have other things to take into account too.
The recent draft Local Plan sets the context for future planning applications. For the Ryton site, it only says there must be “adequate replacement of pitch provision”. So if anyone wants to try and make sure that the training centre has to be fully replaced, they could submit comments on the Rugby Borough Local Plan, asking that the wording be toughened up - along the lines of “Implementation of site allocation DS3.9 can only occur when adequate replacement of all pitches and ancillary facilities is made …”.
On the other hand, if you think that the only way to get rid of SISU is for them to make a killing on Ryton first, you might just want the development to go ahead with as few strings attached as possible. All this cloak-and-dagger stuff from the club makes it hard to know what’s for the best.
All that cash they wasted putting barriers up when we signed King...
Erm How do you make a "Firm offer" to sell?
Selling to wasps didn't finish us, moving to Northampton did.
This is the Ryton thread, right?!
I did a bit of digging on the involvement of Sport England in Planning Applications (https://www.sportengland.org/facili...development-management/planning-applications/).
There are lots of links and policy documents, but to try and summarise, an application which resulted in the loss of sports pitches would oblige the Local Planning Authority (in this case Rugby Borough Council) to consult Sport England. A condition of any permission would almost certainly be to provide replacement pitches in “a suitable location”. On top of that, one of the questions would be “Does the application also include the appropriate replacement of all necessary ancillary provision?” – so on that basis, Sport England might ask for ALL the facilities to be properly replaced as a condition of approval. Actually, there’s not a huge amount at Ryton is there? In any case, Sport England are only a consultee, and the planners would have other things to take into account too.
The recent draft Local Plan sets the context for future planning applications. For the Ryton site, it only says there must be “adequate replacement of pitch provision”. So if anyone wants to try and make sure that the training centre has to be fully replaced, they could submit comments on the Rugby Borough Local Plan, asking that the wording be toughened up - along the lines of “Implementation of site allocation DS3.9 can only occur when adequate replacement of all pitches and ancillary facilities is made …”.
On the other hand, if you think that the only way to get rid of SISU is for them to make a killing on Ryton first, you might just want the development to go ahead with as few strings attached as possible. All this cloak-and-dagger stuff from the club makes it hard to know what’s for the best.
I'm sorry but this is rubbish. Moving to Northampton damaged the club beyond any doubt. But we could have come back from that. There's no way we can ever own the Ricoh now though, or get anything out of it beyond Wasps want to give us. And anyone who things Wasps will act in Coventry City's interests ought to look at the academy situation and then wipe the sleep out of their eyes.
You for real? Sisu had fucking years to buy the Ricoh before upsetting the council and ACL but wanted it on the cheap by bullying and by moving us to Northampton. It backfired. If sisu bought half the Ricoh when they had the chance we wouldn't be talking about it now.
Sometimes I just give up responding because the amount of effort it takes to get all of my points across about why people are talking rubbish, just isn't worth it on a phone
I'm actually quite jealous of you. I wish I was stupid enough to believe all of my life's woes were caused by a single hedge fundBe careful you dont get your head stuck on the way out
Bullshit. You really are an idiot.We were asked to pay more for half than wasps paid for the whole and would still have to pay £1.3 million rent and match day costs.
Are you for real?
We were asked to pay more for half than wasps paid for the whole and would still have to pay £1.3 million rent and match day costs.
Are you for real?
No moral qualms about what Justice Hickinbothom described as SISUs deliberate attempt to bankrupt ACL to their own advantage? Unethically using the admin process to dump the lease and exiling the club 30 miles away to get their own way not a problem for you?We were asked to pay more for half than wasps paid for the whole and would still have to pay £1.3 million rent and match day costs.
Are you for real?
You say something like, "OK, we're prepared to sell, you can have it for £6.5m.".
Compare and contrast with what was actually said to CCFC, "We want to build trust before we discuss ownership".
Next.
If Wasps never turned up the arena would have been handed to SISU debt free like they wanted. They would have then put money into the playing squad. We would then have won Division 3 last season and would now be clear at the top of the Championship.Er......wtf have Wasps got to do with anything?
If wasps hadn't turned up. The ricoh would have gone bust thus allowing sisu to pick it up cheaply. This would then join club with stadium. Making the club worth more, to both sisu and new investors. We might of had a future.
SISU giving up their right to own half of ACL by breaking the lease allowed anyone else the opportunity to buy ACL. If they hadn't broken the lease no one else would have wanted to pick it up.If wasps hadn't turned up. The ricoh would have gone bust thus allowing sisu to pick it up cheaply. This would then join club with stadium. Making the club worth more, to both sisu and new investors. We might of had a future.
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?