Nuneaton Town (1 Viewer)

[hill83]

"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.

 

---

[Hobo]

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.

Perhaps sarcasm doesn't always come across in text and perhaps I jumped the gun a bit on that one.

 

[Astute]

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 same ointlaugh:

 

[Hobo]

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 same ointlaugh:

I agree, before taking any moral stance individual circumstances have to be considered. What is the motivated for such a move and what is the time scale.
For instance in our case, if SISU had bought land to build new stadium, then moved us to Northampton while it was built we would potentially have a very different situation.

 

[Grendel]

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 same ointlaugh:

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.

 

[The Gentleman]

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 plight ointlaugh: 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.

 

[Grendel]

FL have demonstrated sympathy for our plight ointlaugh: 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.

 

[blueflint]

That would be beyond their jurisdiction and challenged in court.

they could of refused to sanction the move to northampton

 

[italiahorse]

they could of refused to sanction the move to northampton

... simply by just applying their own rules :facepalm:

 

[ccfcway]

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 .

40/1 seems huge !

 

[Astute]

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.

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.

 

[Nick]

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.

It could happen though, don't dismiss it too easily

 

[Grendel]

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.

 

[Astute]

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.

 

[Grendel]

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 Gentleman]

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 league weren't misled? Where were the players contracts again?

 

[Hobo]

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 problem FL had was the Ricoh wasn't an option as far as our owners were concerned.

Choice 1 kick them out of league (harsh on fans)
Choice 2 Northampton

If they went for option 1 I think our owners would have suggested they would pursue the matter through court as they threatened if FL moved the share to another party.

Yes FL have rules, but then there is Company Law. I don't think the FL would fancy taking the chance.

 

[Grendel]

The league weren't misled? Where were the players contracts again?

The only penalty for that would surely be a higher points deduction - is that what you would have wanted.

 

[valiant15]

Because the Ricoh isn't in Nuneaton or Bedworth? Surely, we're not advocating what we attack SISU for?

'We'? Ive never seen you attack them.

Still wouldn't stop a small amount of fools going though.

 

[Jack Griffin]

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.

Just for clarity (and to show my focus is on facts not PR) the terms offered CCFC for renting the Ricoh were.

This season £0 rent + £24x8470 matchday costs = £203,280
Next 2 seasons £100,000 rent + 24*£12,316 matchday costs = £395,584
So the deal stands at about £400K for next season.

I believe Northampton are charging about £200,000 for the equivalent at the inferior Sixfields stadium. I think CJ can confirm that. Now isn't that outrageous as the league one average is £150,000 apparently.


The details taken from information on SBT website.

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 Gentleman]

The only penalty for that would surely be a higher points deduction - is that what you would have wanted.

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!

 

[Astute]

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.

And as you know the offer wasn't on the table when they thought there was no choice as had been said to them by SISU. Even the FL were slow to admit that the talks started in January to move our club.

And even you don't trust SISU to tell the truth.

 

[Astute]

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?

 

[Grendel]

So who do you think should pay the match day costs?

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?

 

[Grendel]

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!

Emotional.

You made a statement - I pointed out the only possible outcome of that statement.

 

[Astute]

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?

 

[Grendel]

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.

 

[Astute]

I'd have bought them home.

So you admit they are up to something that any sane person person wouldn't try?

 

[Grendel]

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.

 

[Astute]

Know one knows what the plan is but renting does not improve asset value and we assume asset value is a key priority.

A long term rental agreement at a cheap rent would improve the value of our club. ATM the value must be less than zero. That is because of income to outgoings. The only problem is that they can't raise money on the ground with a big mortgage if they don't own it. Or when they do leave our club how could they charge rent that is high if the rental agreement belongs to the club?

A long term rental agreement at a low rent would also be about the same in cost as owning the freehold. If they rent the owners would have to keep on top of the maintenance.

 

[wingy]

Surely Its obvious why they won't do the logical thing and play,make more money at the RICOH
It hardly supports the victimisation, We Were Forced From Our Home. stance
taken to support the JR ploy does It?

 

[letsallsingtogether]

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?

 

[turlykerd]

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 ??

 

[Flying Fokker]

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 ??

He is selling the club.

 

[stupot07]

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?

There's already a large number of cov fans from nuneaton, I don't think having new ground just inside the borough boundary is going to impact on their fanbase...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors