Well that's that then. Or what do you think? Game over?
How? When Wasp's get planning permission and the swimming pool gets finalised, there is no room for us, no 10 year deal isn't going to change that.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Well that's that then. Or what do you think? Game over?
I don't have the answer Mart, this looks like a done deal to me, especially after what I have been told by people on the inside. We've gone beyond the offering a 10 year deal and everything will be ok
.
All we can do, is go down with a fight. I think we need the trust to lead this and whatever the action we get behind them 100%.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
It's an absolutely terrible position for the club to be in. I'm so disgusted with our owners, CCC, Higgs and previous management. How this has unfolded is a disgrace and there is no way back from this.Frustrating. It puts pressure on the BPA Plan as well as space is already a problem without the Academy. Going down with a fight sounds great, but going down it is. Apart from the JRs what do we have long term? Academy facilities and stadium gone ( looks as if ). Security of tenure at the Ricoh 2 years. BPA - plenty of possible grounds for objections and nothing ratified yet. Not looking good. Not a good CV for Management ..
Exclusive use is probably either certain times of day or first option on times. So it could be used by others when not being used by the academy.Exclusive use?
There is nothing to stop an objection being made.
To get the fullest description of the proposal, I’d point people towards the “Planning Statement May 2016”, which is the 8th document towards the bottom of the Planning Application page (http://planning.coventry.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=783883). There’s a load of stuff in there about the “history”, enough I guess to keep this forum arguing for weeks. Can’t see that it’s particularly relevant to the planning decision though.
Public consultation ends 22nd June, and my feeling is that a bunch of angry knee-jerk online objections won’t get very far. In purely Planning terms, it’s hard to argue against the development of some great facilities on a site which is probably very suitable for them.
One thing I’ve noticed is that the application is listed as a “delegated” matter, which I think means it’s to be decided by a Planning officer without going to Committee. That’s something which definitely has to be challenged, because surely this requires debate. From Stupot’s post above, Cat 2 requires exclusive use of an indoor pitch “at all times”, meaning out-of-hours rental from Wasps is no good to us. So if CCC have plans to replace the existing Higgs centre with a pool, our Academy status will be lost. Surely the combined effect of the two developments (and their impact on the existing users of the site) has to be considered together, and not just by an official?
My overriding emotion is “why couldn’t CCFC ever come up with ambitious plans like this”? Ideally, I’d like to see CCFC approach the Council and Wasps with proposals to put some money in to make the whole development twice as good and suitable for both the clubs and the public to use, sharing some of the overheads. Can’t see it though, we’ve burned all the boats and the situation looks really dire.
What would you suggest? Not being sarcastic, just that you seem to know about that stuff.A planning application can be put before the Planning Committee if a certain number of objections are raised or you can request your Cllr to call for it to be heard.
The problem that will be faced, and this is for info only, is that the proposal is for a sporting development to be built on land already designated for sports.
There are set criteria that objections can be raised around which would result in substantive or detrimental impact that can result in planning applications being rejected - but due to the locality of the site and that it not directly alongside a residential area or the that the development would not dramatically increase the level of traffic it would be difficult to demonstrate these.
Unfortunately personal opinion about the new usage, what people believe the site should be used for or what should be retained on/at the site are not valid objections under planning law/regulations.
A planning officer or planning committee have to work within planning law/regs otherwise if an invalid refusal is made the application can raise and objection and if update review by the Planning Inspectorate the decision was overturn the council can be liable for costs which can run into tens, if not hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Planning regs/laws are laid heavily towards the application and also take any emotion or personal opinion to one side.
I fear I'll be shouted down for the above and not being passionate or caring about the club or predicament we face but this is totally misplaced - I'm simply hoping to offer people an overview of the position we find ourselves in.
What would you suggest? Not being sarcastic, just that you seem to know about that stuff.
He needs to be called out on it. The trust need to be on his case
I know this isn't what people will want to hear and it's just not being said to antagonise people, but in short I think we're fucked.
Planning law/regs are dull and clinical.
Whilst rightly so people are absolutely furious at the situation we face ourselves in, this anger won't have any impact on the process.
People I'm sure will say it's a done deal, already rubber stamped, done behind closed doors etc but in all honesty most applications are presented in a way which ticks all the boxes and due to the current use of the site and also it's location the applicant would already have a number of boxes ticked.
Even if it's called before the Planning Committee they'd be guide around the regulations by the council's legal team on the day - this is to prevent the possibility of the council facing legal costs in the future.
Having it before the Planning Committee would allow people to speak for and against the application, this is normally restricted to two from either side and limited to three minutes. This is also only chance to present a statement and is not an opportunity to question either the other side or Cllrs.
Calling for it can all mean a decision can be delayed for a site visit to take place for example, but it would normally be called back to either the next or subsequent meeting, so the delay would only be for around four to eight weeks.
As I've said above this isn't me being against CCFC, but to hopefully give people an overview of the perilous situation I believe we find ourselves in.
Are you for real?
You dickhead. It's quite obviously been kept hush hush
When the Coventry Telegraph published a story about those plans in Nov 2015.Do you believe plans for Wasps to build training facilities next to the Higgs Centre will impact the club’s Academy?
“We are not aware of such plans, but would be interested in hearing more about these.”
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/ccfc-academy-crisis-alan-higgs-11415227
Could the planned 50-metre swimming pool for the Higgs be built and the existing indoor pitch retained?
“Probably not.”
Its a separate application from the Wasps training centre.
Out of interest, how would it look for planning permission at the BPA for 1. 15000 capacity for Rugby and football ( outline permission for 15000 already there ) and 2. an increase to 25000 if we are doing well - based on what you may know and what we have read on here recently?
I think the biggest issue being faced with this site is the infrastructure.
I know people have said the roads could be closed, there's sufficient parking in close proximity and people could/would catch the train but it would still be driving people/traffic to an area which only has one access.
Could the site fit the 15k or even 25k stadium, then whilst I think it would be a squeeze then I think it would be achievable but with the other aspects such as retail outlets also being on the complex it would mean the whole site being developed.
I think of the two proposals the development of BPA would be by far the greater uphill struggle for the applicant/developer.
So how can he make comments like this..
When the Coventry Telegraph published a story about those plans in Nov 2015.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/wasps-rfc-talks-redevelop-site-10503023
Not very hush hush is it?
This is what he said yesterday afternoon:
Do you believe plans for Wasps to build training facilities next to the Higgs Centre will impact the club’s academy?
“Wasps have been working up plans for a centre based at the Higgs Centre but while that is the intention, nothing is certain.”
Odd that within a few hours the application went in.
Why would we want to downgrade what is in the top 5 academies in the football league?One alternative point of view is that SISU can opt to change the academy from cat 2 to cat 3 and reduce their cost base (which may be a requirement anyway). Each level sets out a minimum requirement in terms of facilities, staff and even the minimum number of hours of coaching that should be offered. It does not mean that having a cat 3 academy has to reduce its standards or what it offers over a cat 2 . It does however give the club a more flexible approach in to how they hire any facilities , what permanent staff are required etc... it may actually give the clubs some needed financial benefits for the first team.
This approach was adopted by Watford in 2012 when they opted to go from a Cat 1 to Cat 3 was a very emotional discussion with the fans at the time but it does not seem to have held them back.
If CCFC / SISU really believe that a Cat 2 academy is required then they have all the necessary facilities that they can rent in accordance with the requirements. If they need to look at operational expenses across the board and the academy classification will be changed to save some money then that is a different argument. The club need to determine what £ 's value is added to the bottom line of CCFC by having a cat 2 academy. If they can be equally effective with cat 3 and over deliver on the minimum requirements and save money well why not.
But lets keep the emotion at the front so that it clouds everything!
Yep, very strange that somebody is just bullshitting and spinning and not being called on it.
Can you imagine if his name was Tim Fisher?
Wasps have been working up plans for a centre based at the Higgs Centre but while that is the intention, nothing is certain.
In the afternoon he says nothing is certain:
In the evening Wasps are offering to help CCFC, very strange for something that is not very certain.
Of course it is PR.
I was banging on about something bad coming for the last couple of weeks, literally just from the increase of PR and things going on on here. People appearing again who haven't for ages, anger being fired up in advance.
They are offering 3 hours in the indoor bit every weekday. But doesn't the club require full access to this 24/7 to keep the category 2 status?
But it's not certain.
SISU/CCFC may not be able to accept the offer as it's unworkable.
I still don't see how it's either spin or PR or can be compared to the type of comments Fisher has made, none of which have come to fruition.
Why would we want to downgrade what is in the top 5 academies in the football league?
Unlike Watford we rely on our academy to produce player.
Burge, maddison, Phillips, Willis, C Thomas, G Thomas, Haynes, Sambou, Harries, Kelly-Evans all made at least 1 appearance in the first team last season, how many players from Watford academy make first team appearances?
Moreover in the last 4-5 years the academy is brought in
Bigi -£1m
Christie - c£500k
Maddison - £2.5m+
Wilson - £3m
Sambou - compensation due
That more than covers the cost of the academy.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
As I said , this is for the club to decide and if it is self funding and the cat 2 label is that important as you suggest then all they need to do is sit down and negotiate.
I think the biggest issue being faced with this site is the infrastructure.
I know people have said the roads could be closed, there's sufficient parking in close proximity and people could/would catch the train but it would still be driving people/traffic to an area which only has one access.
Could the site fit the 15k or even 25k stadium, then whilst I think it would be a squeeze then I think it would be achievable but with the other aspects such as retail outlets also being on the complex it would mean the whole site being developed.
I think of the two proposals the development of BPA would be by far the greater uphill struggle for the applicant/developer.
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?