Non AMP
Sky Blues Talk
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

New Stadium Announcement!!!!!! (2 Viewers)

  • Thread starter Nick
  • Start date Jul 21, 2020
Forums New posts
Prev
  • 1
  • …
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
Next
First Prev 39 of 43 Next Last

edgy

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 22, 2021
  • #1,331
lordy_87 said:
Not that I believe this stadium will happen but if it did would love something like this... Orlando SC stadium 25,000. Construction cost $155m though...

View attachment 17903

View attachment 17904

View attachment 17905
Click to expand...


Jheezzz we dont have the weather for that design. I'm having flashbacks to the National Hockey Stadium. Trying to be happy at Suffo's goal.
 

robbiekeane

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 22, 2021
  • #1,332
CoventryUSA said:
That was true in the old days (2000-2010 ish). But the league is on much more solid footing these days and has now cemented itself for good. As such, all the new stadiums being built are much, much nicer and will be around for decades to come.

Here are the renderings of the stadium being built for my club, Nashville SC. Link to Video "Flythrough"



Click to expand...
Around your neck of the woods in March/April!
 

Brylowes

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 22, 2021
  • #1,333
Woodingdean_Sky_Blue said:
The VLR map is a bit inaccurate, isn't it? They have put Kings Hill north of the A45 and it is south of there.
Click to expand...
These type of transport maps are never geographically correct are they, the London Underground map is miles out but they’re done in a way that supposedly makes them easier to follow.
But surely eleven VLR stations wouldn’t be sufficient to keep the people of Coventry on the move, that map only shows one station to service the whole of north Coventry.
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 22, 2021
  • #1,334
fernandopartridge said:
Some broadly stadium related info:

1. Paper from Warwick DC on site of a new Cov South railway station. This has some other general info about plans to develop land around UoW WCCC-2066277159-1388 (warwickshire.gov.uk)

2. Image of proposed 'Very Light Rail' route map

View attachment 18321
Click to expand...
Anyone else think that someone just drew a wonky helicopter blade onto a map, there?
 
Reactions: Woodingdean_Sky_Blue and Brylowes

Woodingdean_Sky_Blue

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 22, 2021
  • #1,335
Brylowes said:
These type of transport maps are never geographically correct are they, the London Underground map is miles out but they’re done in a way that supposedly makes them easier to follow.
But surely eleven VLR stations wouldn’t be sufficient to keep the people of Coventry on the move, that map only shows one station to service the whole of north Coventry.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't even work as a schematic map (like the tube map) as the location of Kings Hill is so far removed from reality. It's a dog's dinner of a map considering how much money is being thrown at the project.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 22, 2021
  • #1,336
Woodingdean_Sky_Blue said:
But it doesn't even work as a schematic map (like the tube map) as the location of Kings Hill is so far removed from reality. It's a dog's dinner of a map considering how much money is being thrown at the project.
Click to expand...

It’s not the location of Kings Hill, it’s the location of the station paid for by the Kings Hill development.

The map is fine.
 

Woodingdean_Sky_Blue

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 22, 2021
  • #1,337
shmmeee said:
It’s not the location of Kings Hill, it’s the location of the station paid for by the Kings Hill development.

The map is fine.
Click to expand...

The map isn't fine, it's wrong.

By overlaying the Very Light Rail (VLR) map and the Warwickshire County Council (WCC) Option 3 map on to a road map (Michelin) you can see how ridiculous what you say is.

The VLR map is appalling quality (it is skewed from north and some of the existing road and rail features have been drawn slightly out of proportion and following slightly incorrect courses). A 'best fit' of the VLR map on an accurate road map places Kings Hill station approximately on top of the Robins and Day Peugeot garage on Leamington Road. It marks the Coventry South Station as being somewhere to the just off the Kenilworth Road between the A45 and Gibbet Hill Road (near Cannon Hill Road and the side entrance to the Bishop Ullathorne School site).

The WCC map is pretty good quality (proportions check out well against a range of other source maps I have access to). The WCC map places the Kings Hill station on Kenilworth Road and approximately opposite the entrance to Cryfield Grange Road - that's 1.75 miles from where the VLR map positions it.


 

Otis

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 23, 2021
  • #1,338
Woodingdean_Sky_Blue said:
The map isn't fine, it's wrong.

By overlaying the Very Light Rail (VLR) map and the Warwickshire County Council (WCC) Option 3 map on to a road map (Michelin) you can see how ridiculous what you say is.

The VLR map is appalling quality (it is skewed from north and some of the existing road and rail features have been drawn slightly out of proportion and following slightly incorrect courses). A 'best fit' of the VLR map on an accurate road map places Kings Hill station approximately on top of the Robins and Day Peugeot garage on Leamington Road. It marks the Coventry South Station as being somewhere to the just off the Kenilworth Road between the A45 and Gibbet Hill Road (near Cannon Hill Road and the side entrance to the Bishop Ullathorne School site).

The WCC map is pretty good quality (proportions check out well against a range of other source maps I have access to). The WCC map places the Kings Hill station on Kenilworth Road and approximately opposite the entrance to Cryfield Grange Road - that's 1.75 miles from where the VLR map positions it.


View attachment 18324
Click to expand...
Yup. Definitely a wonky helicopter blade
 
S

SBT

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,339
So assuming reports of this new Ricoh deal are accurate, are we supposed to believe that our new stadium will take a minimum of seven more years to complete?

Does anyone seriously think this is still happening?
 

Terry Gibson's perm

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,340
SBT said:
So assuming reports of this new Ricoh deal are accurate, are we supposed to believe that our new stadium will take a minimum of seven more years to complete?

Does anyone seriously think this is still happening?
Click to expand...

I don’t think it will happen but I would say seven years for a project of that size with no current planning permission in a city where the council don’t like the football team would be about right
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,341
SBT said:
So assuming reports of this new Ricoh deal are accurate, are we supposed to believe that our new stadium will take a minimum of seven more years to complete?

Does anyone seriously think this is still happening?
Click to expand...
Don't think many people seriously thought it was happening to start with did they? But if you did 7 years would probably be a reasonable minimum timeframe.

My hope is that any deal is a rolling deal rather than us having to go through all this again in 10 years time.
 

fatso

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,342
You can get rid of a lot of toxic councillors in 7 years!
 
Reactions: robbiethemole, Mcbean and Moff

cc84cov

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,343
SBT said:
So assuming reports of this new Ricoh deal are accurate, are we supposed to believe that our new stadium will take a minimum of seven more years to complete?

Does anyone seriously think this is still happening?
Click to expand...
It was never happening
 
S

SBT

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,344
chiefdave said:
Don't think many people seriously thought it was happening to start with did they? But if you did 7 years would probably be a reasonable minimum timeframe.

My hope is that any deal is a rolling deal rather than us having to go through all this again in 10 years time.
Click to expand...

I believe the official position of this board is that we are "delighted" with the original stadium announcement, is it not?

Last year's initial plan was for a stadium within five years - what's changed in the last few months that means we have to lock ourselves into the hated RIcoh for an extra three years of supposed financial ruin?
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,345
SBT said:
So assuming reports of this new Ricoh deal are accurate, are we supposed to believe that our new stadium will take a minimum of seven more years to complete?

Does anyone seriously think this is still happening?
Click to expand...

Would be good to get the links going anyway and maybe even get planning permission in the meantime.

Can’t help but wonder if this isn’t all set up for a sale/outside investment.
 
Reactions: Telfer85

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,346
cc84cov said:
It was never happening
Click to expand...

It is happening
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,347
SBT said:
I believe the official position of this board is that we are "delighted" with the original stadium announcement, is it not?

Last year's initial plan was for a stadium within five years - what's changed in the last few months that means we have to lock ourselves into the hated RIcoh for an extra three years of supposed financial ruin?
Click to expand...

Most people on here thought it was nonsense
 
S

Seamus1

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,348
fatso said:
You can get rid of a lot of toxic councillors in 7 years!
Click to expand...
Sadly not a chance in Coventry. A slug would win a council vote if you put a Labour sticker on it. Stuck with the likes of O’Boyle and Maton and their stuck in the past view of building factories for however long they want to be there.
 
Last edited: Mar 4, 2021
Reactions: Telfer85, Covstu and vow
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,349
SBT said:
So assuming reports of this new Ricoh deal are accurate, are we supposed to believe that our new stadium will take a minimum of seven more years to complete?

Does anyone seriously think this is still happening?
Click to expand...
The timescale seems right. The likelihood of SISU building it however...
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,350
SBT said:
I believe the official position of this board is that we are "delighted" with the original stadium announcement, is it not?

Last year's initial plan was for a stadium within five years - what's changed in the last few months that means we have to lock ourselves into the hated RIcoh for an extra three years of supposed financial ruin?
Click to expand...
tbf we should have moved into this 3-4 years ago.

 
Reactions: letsallsingtogether
S

SBT

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,351
Grendel said:
Most people on here thought it was nonsense
Click to expand...

Nice try at gaslighting, but you only have to click back to page 1 of this thread and you can't move for celebration gifs and exclamation marks

Then you have the laughable "Forum statement" I mentioned about how delighted we all supposedly were about the announcement: Forum Statement on New Stadium Announcement

Looked silly then, looks even more silly now imo
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,352
SBT said:
Nice try at gaslighting, but you only have to click back to page 1 of this thread and you can't move for celebration gifs and exclamation marks

Then you have the laughable "Forum statement" I mentioned about how delighted we all supposedly were about the announcement: Forum Statement on New Stadium Announcement

Looked silly then, looks even more silly now imo
Click to expand...

Most people thought it was nonsense

The forum statement is I assume one or two people
 
Reactions: cc84cov
S

SBT

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,353
Grendel said:
Most people thought it was nonsense

The forum statement is I assume one or two people
Click to expand...

Have the mods tried switching him off and on again? Think PartridgeBot is broken.

The forum statement (and the dozens of people who liked it and commented their approval of it) is there for all to see
 

Frostie

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,354
Deleted member 5849 said:
tbf we should have moved into this 3-4 years ago.

Click to expand...

Pitch doesn't look great...
 
Reactions: vow

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,355
SBT said:
Have the mods tried switching him off and on again? Think PartridgeBot is broken.

The forum statement (and the dozens of people who liked it and commented their approval of it) is there for all to see
Click to expand...

The forum statement was signed by two people with vague comments from a few people saying it looks ok, it was hardly dozens and it actually on page 1 descended into an argument on indemnity clauses

you can’t as i am sure you know anyway make an approved statement on behalf of several hundred people

Even the statement stressed an urgency to return to Coventry anyway which was the primary concern
 
Reactions: Brylowes and cc84cov
S

SBT

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,356
Grendel said:
The forum statement was signed by two people with vague comments from a few people saying it looks ok, it was hardly dozens and it actually on page 1 descended into an argument on indemnity clauses

you can’t as i am sure you know anyway make an approved statement on behalf of several hundred people

Even the statement stressed an urgency to return to Coventry anyway which was the primary concern
Click to expand...

Well I refuse to believe a thread about our stadium situation quickly descended into an indemnity clause argument, truly this must have been an unprecedented situation on Sky Blues Talk

Like I said - people can look for themselves at the post and who liked it and judge whether it was a well-received sentiment or not. As you mention, the fact there was a statement at all is bizarre - not that it stopped dozens of people (64 actually) from liking it anyway.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,357
Not sure there's much wrong with that statement to be honest. It says we look forward to seeing more details but need to be back at the Ricoh in the interim.

If we are now back at the Ricoh, hopefully with some level of stability, they can bang on about a new stadium as much as they like.
 
Reactions: capel & collindridge, Sky Blue Pete and mark82

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,358
SBT said:
Well I refuse to believe a thread about our stadium situation quickly descended into an indemnity clause argument, truly this must have been an unprecedented situation on Sky Blues Talk

Like I said - people can look for themselves at the post and who liked it and judge whether it was a well-received sentiment or not. As you mention, the fact there was a statement at all is bizarre - not that it stopped dozens of people (64 actually) from liking it anyway.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t mean they supported the ground plan does it?
 
Reactions: mark82

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,359
SBT said:
I believe the official position of this board is that we are "delighted" with the original stadium announcement, is it not?

Last year's initial plan was for a stadium within five years - what's changed in the last few months that means we have to lock ourselves into the hated RIcoh for an extra three years of supposed financial ruin?
Click to expand...
What are you trying to prove? The reaction was one of hope not jubilation.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,360
SBT said:
Have the mods tried switching him off and on again? Think PartridgeBot is broken.

The forum statement (and the dozens of people who liked it and commented their approval of it) is there for all to see
Click to expand...
Why have you mentioned me? I had nothing to do with the forum statement and my first post on the topic is that it was a bit vague and no actual site identified.
 
Reactions: Nick
S

SBT

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,361
Grendel said:
It doesn’t mean they supported the ground plan does it?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, or perhaps not, but it means they clearly didn't think it was nonsense.
fernandopartridge said:
What are you trying to prove? The reaction was one of hope not jubilation.
Click to expand...

I hope to one day be a billionaire, but if 'Big' Dave Boddy announces that him and the University of Warwick are going to make it happen for me, I wouldn't rush to say how delighted I was unless I thought they actually meant it.
 

hill83

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,362
fernandopartridge said:
Why have you mentioned me? I had nothing to do with the forum statement and my first post on the topic is that it was a bit vague and no actual site identified.
Click to expand...

Think he's suggesting Grendel is like Alan Partridge.
 
Reactions: Deleted member 5849

Nick

Administrator
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,363
Looks like SBT has been fired up again, only usually like this when somebody says something about a journalist.

"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"
Click to expand...

The majority of it is about returning to the Ricoh.

Where in that does it say "we fully believe there will be new stadium?" It says we look forward to seeing plans and hopefully it involves the fans.
 
Reactions: cc84cov and Deleted member 11652

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,364
hill83 said:
Think he's suggesting Grendel is like Alan Partridge.
Click to expand...

He's not my Dad
 
Reactions: hill83
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
  • Mar 4, 2021
  • #1,365
fernandopartridge said:
He's not my Dad
Click to expand...
Now there's an exclusive that Simon Gilbert missed out on.
 
Reactions: mark82 and Nick
Prev
  • 1
  • …
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
Next
First Prev 39 of 43 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Share:
Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
  • Default Style
  • Contact us
  • Terms and rules
  • Privacy policy
  • Help
  • Home
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2021 XenForo Ltd.
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Home
  • Forums
    • New posts
    • Search forums
  • What's new
    • New posts
    • Latest activity
  • Members
    • Current visitors
  • Donate to the Season Ticket Fund
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?