hill83
Well-Known Member
Maybe sarcasm doesn't come across well in text form. But now knowing you thought I was being serious it makes your reply even more baffling.
"I just don't think it would be funny". Strange as my original reply was to you saying "that would be hilarious" at the possibility?
Maybe sarcasm doesn't come across well in text form. But now knowing you thought I was being serious it makes your reply even more baffling.
Is it different? If so, how many on here said they won't attend CCFC if it's even a few yards outside the Coventry boundary?
It may be open to discussion but would Nuneaton fans be happy with moving out of their town? 3 miles or 33 miles, surely if it's wrong then it wrong regardless of the mileage?
KNIN.
Let me hav a think about this one
We could be playing at the Ricoh. SISU want independent valuations done on a stadium that doesn't have football played there. For the value to be reduced they have taken us to Northampton which is 34 miles away. They also want all loans paid off and current contracts paid off. For this they are willing to pay less than this would cost for the freehold. And they are willing to keep us in Northampton until this happens it seems.......although telling us that they are going to build another stadium :thinking about:
Nuneaton have a football club that might get promoted to the football league. There is a good chance that their ground isn't up to standard. So they will need to find somewhere to play whilst their ground is brought up to spec. Otherwise they miss out on promotion. There is an empty ground just a few miles away. Just up a dual carriageway. Or a drive through Bedworth.
So forgetting about hatred for CCC, SISU or anyone else can anyone explain how these are similar to each other?
If my club had a shit ground and would miss out on promotion for this reason I would happily travel the 3 miles for my club to get promoted to the FL whilst my own clubs ground got sorted out. This is a good reason to do a temporary move. Whereas the move that our club has done..........yet some try to make out it is the sameointlaugh:
Let me hav a think about this one
We could be playing at the Ricoh. SISU want independent valuations done on a stadium that doesn't have football played there. For the value to be reduced they have taken us to Northampton which is 34 miles away. They also want all loans paid off and current contracts paid off. For this they are willing to pay less than this would cost for the freehold. And they are willing to keep us in Northampton until this happens it seems.......although telling us that they are going to build another stadium :thinking about:
Nuneaton have a football club that might get promoted to the football league. There is a good chance that their ground isn't up to standard. So they will need to find somewhere to play whilst their ground is brought up to spec. Otherwise they miss out on promotion. There is an empty ground just a few miles away. Just up a dual carriageway. Or a drive through Bedworth.
So forgetting about hatred for CCC, SISU or anyone else can anyone explain how these are similar to each other?
If my club had a shit ground and would miss out on promotion for this reason I would happily travel the 3 miles for my club to get promoted to the FL whilst my own clubs ground got sorted out. This is a good reason to do a temporary move. Whereas the move that our club has done..........yet some try to make out it is the sameointlaugh:
From the football leagues position it would likely to not be the same. They have demonstrated sympathy for our plight to the fact the club has nowhere to play. They have a duty to represent all members. If a clubs ground is not ready for league football allowing it to move sets a dangerous as opposed to a sympathetic precedent.
As stu has already pointed out Hinckley would be preferable anyway as its cheaper.
The distance is 6.4 miles.
FL have demonstrated sympathy for our plightointlaugh: I'd say it was a Leicester fan taking the piss! A strong FL would not have let it get as far as it did and forced the issue to be resolved with us playing at the Ricoh.
That would be beyond their jurisdiction and challenged in court.
they could of refused to sanction the move to northampton
I've just checked . Best prices are 40/1 for Nuneaton to be promoted and 25 to 1 for Cov to be relegate . So 1000 / 1 for it to happen in a double . May be worth a couple of quid .
From the football leagues position it would likely to not be the same. They have demonstrated sympathy for our plight to the fact the club has nowhere to play. They have a duty to represent all members. If a clubs ground is not ready for league football allowing it to move sets a dangerous as opposed to a sympathetic precedent.
As stu has already pointed out Hinckley would be preferable anyway as its cheaper.
The distance is 6.4 miles.
Deluded about what exactly? I've not given my opinion on the matter either way. I just don't think it would be funny if it happened.
And mental illness is no laughing matter.
Nowhere to play? :thinking about:Our club never got kicked out of the Ricoh even after not paying the rent for a long time.
If you say it would set a dangerous precedent for allowing a club time to bring their ground up to standard whilst playing locally what do you think they have done with our club? That is other than bending the rules a few times. There was even talks between SISU and the FL over 6 months before the move. That was with half of the season to go and still playing at the Ricoh then.
The football league took the view that there would be no fulfilment of fixtures if the move was not sanctioned.
As you correctly state they had months of talks so would be in a far better place to make that assessment rather than you, me or anyone else on this forum.
The FL only spoke to one side. They got the views of SISU. They thought SISU were going to build a stadium. They thought that our club was getting thrown out of the Ricoh.
So how is the stadium build going? The FL now also know that they were not getting thrown out of the Ricoh. ACL made the rent free offer this season and only 100k the next two seasons that was not only turned down by SISU but they tried to make out as though the offer wasn't made. The problem is that the FL have already given them a minimum 3 years to sort something out. If they were not worried about litigation before they gave them this permission they would be to go back on the 3 to 5 years permission already granted.
Oh for hindsight on behalf of the FL.
All of this is guesswork as you were not party to the talks. When you say only one side well yes but then they will only talk to their members.
Again the £100,000 or free offer is viewed by that one side as inaccurate due to match day costs incorporating some of the lease element.
This is irrelevant and you seem to ignore my main point. The league weren't misled they knew there was a stadium and an offer. They took the view the offer would not be accepted by the club abd therefore the club would cease to exist. There would be no litigation as the club in the football leagues view would not take the offer and not fulfill its fixtures. They could asses the mood better than us.
The FL only spoke to one side. They got the views of SISU. They thought SISU were going to build a stadium. They thought that our club was getting thrown out of the Ricoh.
So how is the stadium build going? The FL now also know that they were not getting thrown out of the Ricoh. ACL made the rent free offer this season and only 100k the next two seasons that was not only turned down by SISU but they tried to make out as though the offer wasn't made. The problem is that the FL have already given them a minimum 3 years to sort something out. If they were not worried about litigation before they gave them this permission they would be to go back on the 3 to 5 years permission already granted.
Oh for hindsight on behalf of the FL.
The league weren't misled? Where were the players contracts again?
Because the Ricoh isn't in Nuneaton or Bedworth? Surely, we're not advocating what we attack SISU for?
The FL only spoke to one side. They got the views of SISU. They thought SISU were going to build a stadium. They thought that our club was getting thrown out of the Ricoh.
So how is the stadium build going? The FL now also know that they were not getting thrown out of the Ricoh. ACL made the rent free offer this season and only 100k the next two seasons that was not only turned down by SISU but they tried to make out as though the offer wasn't made. The problem is that the FL have already given them a minimum 3 years to sort something out. If they were not worried about litigation before they gave them this permission they would be to go back on the 3 to 5 years permission already granted.
Oh for hindsight on behalf of the FL.
A5. Match-day costs include, contributions towards the groundsman ( previously employed by the club and now by ACL), the pitch treatments, the equipment to maintain the pitch, a contribution towards match-day utilities, hygiene, maintenance staff, waste disposal, statutory compliance, match-day stadium safety and control room management. The proposal excluded police, West Midlands Ambulance, St Johns Ambulance, medical personnel, ticketing staff, stewards as these remain an obligation of the football club, which has always been the case, and would be a requirement at any other venue. Costs for the remainder of 13/14 season would equate to £8,470 per match and for 14/15 and 15/16 seasons £12,316 per match.
The only penalty for that would surely be a higher points deduction - is that what you would have wanted.
All of this is guesswork as you were not party to the talks. When you say only one side well yes but then they will only talk to their members.
Again the £100,000 or free offer is viewed by that one side as inaccurate due to match day costs incorporating some of the lease element.
This is irrelevant and you seem to ignore my main point. The league weren't misled they knew there was a stadium and an offer. They took the view the offer would not be accepted by the club abd therefore the club would cease to exist. There would be no litigation as the club in the football leagues view would not take the offer and not fulfill its fixtures. They could asses the mood better than us.
All of this is guesswork as you were not party to the talks. When you say only one side well yes but then they will only talk to their members.
Again the £100,000 or free offer is viewed by that one side as inaccurate due to match day costs incorporating some of the lease element.
This is irrelevant and you seem to ignore my main point. The league weren't misled they knew there was a stadium and an offer. They took the view the offer would not be accepted by the club abd therefore the club would cease to exist. There would be no litigation as the club in the football leagues view would not take the offer and not fulfill its fixtures. They could asses the mood better than us.
So who do you think should pay the match day costs?
Why do you continually try to paint other CCFC fans as only wanting bad for the club, at times you seem to just try and manipulate a thread just so you can say or imply that others want CCFC to fail. Is that some sort of self gratification where you can put a finger up and say to yourself 1 nil. Well bravo for you, but if that is what you life seems to consist of then so be it. I want CCFC to succeed, I want CCFC to play in Coventry, I want decent owners who care only for our club, I want to talk to my mates on matchdays about the football i have seen and not shitty off field crap and I want CCFC fans to be united with each other and not continual crappy arguments and points scoring. Those are the things I want!
The argument is a lot of the costs were effectively transferred from the rent to the match day element. Remember this costs do not include policing and stewarding and the most are not crowd dependent. These costs alone make the whole tenure of this thread nonsense as who would pay them if Nuneaton are there?
So what costs are included in this and what costs would still have to be paid then?
If you owned the club would you have kept us in Northampton or brought us home.....not only keeping your customers happy but making an extra 2 to 3 million extra?
I'd have bought them home.
So you admit they are up to something that any sane person person wouldn't try?
Know one knows what the plan is but renting does not improve asset value and we assume asset value is a key priority.
So why shouldnt they move to the Ricoh after all it is only a small town they cant support 2 teams.
And with CCFC aparantly welcome to move into there town then them coming the other way seems to be a viable option.
So it is ok for us to move into their town and take their support away but not tbe other way around?
so.....
what if Coventry city moved to nuneaton and then nuneaton moved to Coventry... Would Coventry then be called nuneaton sky blues? And nuneaton become the cov boro's ? And then nuneaton would be owned by sisu and Coventry owned by Ian neal ??I'm a little vague on the nuneaton owner situation but
doesn't the owner sit on the ccfc board ??
So why shouldnt they move to the Ricoh after all it is only a small town they cant support 2 teams.
And with CCFC aparantly welcome to move into there town then them coming the other way seems to be a viable option.
So it is ok for us to move into their town and take their support away but not tbe other way around?
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?