Nick
Administrator
The councillors will go with what the telegraph say.
I doubt the councillors actually know or give a shit. You just have to look at the way Maton bangs on like an arrogant prick.
They all get away with doing what they want.
The proposal will go before the committee, providing it receives 5 or more representations that are contrary to the planning officer's recommendation i.e if the officer recommends approval, but 5 or more objections are received, it goes to committee.
The point of objecting is not about obtaining a rejection - because that would be very difficult to achieve. It can however be used as a tool to demonstrate the depth of feeling and frustration at what is unfolding. This is important, because I genuinely think councillors are of the option that the vast majority are with them on all issues relating to CCFC - you'd certainly get that impression if you only read comments on the CT. It is certainly worth objecting, even if only to plant a seed of doubt that the actions of the council are not as popular as they probably believe they are.
Because you would only get half the funding from the FA, and you wouldn't be able to run it like a cat 2 because we wouldn't have access to an indoor facility for year round coaching and the wasps will be using the other pitches at the higgs for their academy. A Cat 2 academy costs about £1.1m to run, the fa pay for half of it.I fully agree that we benefit from the Academy in terms of players out. But the Category requirements determine the investment in and minimum requirements in terms of facilities and full time staff so pound notes spent that cannot be spent else where. A category 3 academy does not require the same prescriptive investment but does not stop the club running an excellent academy. Why would they want to change the Output? Simply having a floodlight artificial pitch and and in building facility is no guarantee of success but does commit resources. Why not reclassify and still run is as a cat 2? you have more choices in how you spend the cash.
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.
If you take a cynical view you might speculate that they decided they'd downgrade to cat 3 and blame someone else for the decision.Isn't that what the club are trying?
If I took a cynical view I'd say people are on here doing PR and starting rumours again.If you take a cynical view you might speculate that they decided they'd downgrade to cat 3 and blame someone else for the decision.
It's Wasps with a token offer that won't help trying to quash any discontent towards them. Helped beautifully by the telegraph.
Side note: Sisu have fucked up big time here again. So don't try to engage me in any of that bollocks.
Yes, their offer of help is unworkable isn't it as it still means they wouldnt be able to have CAT2. Still, it makes them look good doesn't it.
Isn't that what the club are trying?
We seem to be moving away from the point. His answer to the question was nothing is certain. You previous reply said this was spin - which this isn't.
We seem to be moving away from the point. His answer to the question was nothing is certain. You previous reply said this was spin - which this isn't.
It is spin.
Wasps:
"Hey guys, look, don't hate us, we will help you with an offer that won't help but don't mention that bit"
Telegraph:
"Gobble gobble"
Outcome:
"Lovely wasps, I'd take them home to my mother. Naughty Sisu. Tut tut."
Exactly, like the Telegraph banged on about them helping the Rugby club etc etc when they move. Then the rugby club say they haven't kept any and it goes unmentioned.
The proposal will go before the committee, providing it receives 5 or more representations that are contrary to the planning officer's recommendation i.e if the officer recommends approval, but 5 or more objections are received, it goes to committee.
The point of objecting is not about obtaining a rejection - because that would be very difficult to achieve. It can however be used as a tool to demonstrate the depth of feeling and frustration at what is unfolding. This is important, because I genuinely think councillors are of the option that the vast majority are with them on all issues relating to CCFC - you'd certainly get that impression if you only read comments on the CT. It is certainly worth objecting, even if only to plant a seed of doubt that the actions of the council are not as popular as they probably believe they are.
My point was in the afternoon he plays it all down, tries to give a bit of hope and then completely changes his tune in the evening.
It is exactly the same as the "come and buy the other 50% while wasps have the other" type stuff in the media then to make them look good.
I know the detail of the planning application was filed yesterday but the general outline was contained in Charge & Covenant registered on CAWAT when they took the site over 17/03/2016. That charge was filed and became public knowledge 18/03/2016.
CCC own the freehold, AEHC own the 150 year lease, Cawat own the Alan Higgs Centre and CSF operate the Alan Higgs Centre. The covenant details amongst other things
- a payment of £400k from CAWAT to AEHC (part repayment of original investment of £12m)
- Wasps are specifically mentioned in the document
- a premium of £150k payable to CAWAT by Wasps plus peppercorn rent for use of the site
- the area to be developed is outlined
- the actual proposal of what could be developed is outlined because AEHC has to give permission for any development on the site that CAWAT want to do
- there is Charity permission to build a swimming pool as well as the kicking barn
- there is a clause that says any disposal of interest to a party that has instigated or threatened legal action against the Charity in the previous 5 years will be vetoed
- the covenant lasts for 30 years
- the facilities must include community usage
Pretty much a done deal if you ask me with funds committed and partnerships forged - the planning application is process
Why do I mention this - it has been on the public record for 11 weeks and yet CA raises the issue the same day as the planning application is made claiming he knows nothing and were being forced out, followed by statements from Mr Breed that are contradictory and in my opinion misleading. Both did themselves no favours yesterday. Not sure that I will place much weight on any future statements from either of them. I found the mix of the statements verbose, patronising, manipulative and misleading - nothing new there then
Then it turns out there had been discussions between Wasps & CCFC about usage of the kicking barn by CCFC with a view to maintaining CCFC's Cat 2 status. These were repeated on CWR this morning by Mr Armstrong, (7:50 ish) saying it actually works quite well because the Wasps squad finish at 3pm and the Academy (mainly school kids) start at 5 or 6 in the evening. Apparently it is just a big indoor space (half the size of a rugby pitch) that can be used for many sports. He seemed top know all about the requirements etc for Cat 2. So there is an outline offer on the table from Wasps that should safeguard the Academy future once the development is done. Wasps it seems are prepared to work with the club to maintain the category 2 status - prospect of a partnership for a change?
What changes for the Academy. Well they would still rent facilities so they will have to pay, they would not have exclusive usage but never did in the first place and still met the Cat 2 criteria, they would lose the pitch next to the Alan Higgs centre, and another pitch would be used by Wasps - that would still leave other pitches to be used. So in reality not a lot.
Does it still leave the option to go build our own - yes. Are CCFC actually being forced out of the Alan Higgs Centre ? - doesn't seem so. Is the academy important to the club? - you would hope so certainly is to the fans. Are Wasps & CCFC prepared to commit to this? Would both commit to it long term? Would both commit to a sporting excellence partnership? What are the CCFC plans for the next 2, 5, 10, 15 years? what are CCFC or the owners prepared to commit to? - because it is about time they committed to something
There is as yet no planning application for the pool but the head leaseholder has agreed to its potential build. So until it is built the current indoor facilities remain and could well overlap with the kicking barn.
The grounds for challenging this planning application on an existing sports site with reasonable infrastructure around it are very limited in my opinion
I think it would be wise to press all sides on this including CCFC and to keep doing so, demand proper answers from all of them. . As often is the case things are never so clear cut as might seem. It looks like there are solutions it just depends who is prepared to pick them up and run with them
Final thoughts. But before I make it, I believe and always have that the Academy is vital to CCFC's future and that it must be protected at all costs. If that means protesting, challenging, fighting for it then lets do it. However lets make sure we are challenging the right people - that seems to be CSF, Wasps, CCC and importantly given the above CCFC. But say the planning is rejected, then CSF gets permission on the pool is the future of CCFC academy more secure or not?
Really wish we didn't even have to consider any of this. One more thing to add to the long and ever growing messes that CCFC gets embroiled in
Spot on. Stop the short termism!What are the CCFC plans for the next 2, 5, 10, 15 years? what are CCFC or the owners prepared to commit to? - because it is about time they committed to something
AgreedSpot on. Stop the short termism!
Side note: Sisu have fucked up big time here again. So don't try to engage me in any of that bollocks.
I know the detail of the planning application was filed yesterday but the general outline was contained in Charge & Covenant registered on CAWAT when they took the site over 17/03/2016. That charge was filed and became public knowledge 18/03/2016.
CCC own the freehold, AEHC own the 150 year lease, Cawat own the Alan Higgs Centre and CSF operate the Alan Higgs Centre. The covenant details amongst other things
- a payment of £400k from CAWAT to AEHC (part repayment of original investment of £12m)
- Wasps are specifically mentioned in the document
- a premium of £150k payable to CAWAT by Wasps plus peppercorn rent for use of the site
- the area to be developed is outlined
- the actual proposal of what could be developed is outlined because AEHC has to give permission for any development on the site that CAWAT want to do
- there is Charity permission to build a swimming pool as well as the kicking barn
- there is a clause that says any disposal of interest to a party that has instigated or threatened legal action against the Charity in the previous 5 years will be vetoed
- the covenant lasts for 30 years
- the facilities must include community usage
Pretty much a done deal if you ask me with funds committed and partnerships forged - the planning application is process.
Why do I mention this - it has been on the public record for 11 weeks and yet CA raises the issue the same day as the planning application is made claiming he knows nothing and were being forced out, followed by statements from Mr Breed that are contradictory and in my opinion misleading. Both did themselves no favours yesterday. Not sure that I will place much weight on any future statements from either of them. I found the mix of the statements verbose, patronising, manipulative and misleading - nothing new there then. I find it very hard to believe that both had little or no knowledge of what was going on
Then it turns out there had been discussions between Wasps & CCFC about usage of the kicking barn by CCFC with a view to maintaining CCFC's Cat 2 status. These were repeated on CWR this morning by Mr Armstrong, (7:50 ish) saying it actually works quite well because the Wasps squad finish at 3pm and the Academy (mainly school kids) start at 5 or 6 in the evening. Apparently it is just a big indoor space (half the size of a rugby pitch) that can be used for many sports. He seemed top know all about the requirements etc for Cat 2. So there is an outline offer on the table from Wasps that should safeguard the Academy future once the development is done. Wasps it seems are prepared to work with the club to maintain the category 2 status - prospect of a partnership for a change?
What changes for the Academy. Well they would still rent facilities so they will have to pay, they would not have exclusive usage but never did in the first place and still met the Cat 2 criteria, they would lose the pitch next to the Alan Higgs centre, and another pitch would be used by Wasps - that would still leave other pitches to be used. So in reality not a lot.
Does it still leave the option to go build our own - yes. Are CCFC actually being forced out of the Alan Higgs Centre ? - doesn't seem so. Is the academy important to the club? - you would hope so certainly is to the fans. Are Wasps & CCFC prepared to commit to this? Would both commit to it long term? Would both commit to a sporting excellence partnership? What are the CCFC plans for the next 2, 5, 10, 15 years? what are CCFC or the owners prepared to commit to? - because it is about time they committed to something
There is as yet no planning application for the pool but the head leaseholder has agreed to its potential build. So until it is built the current indoor facilities remain and could well overlap with the kicking barn.
The grounds for challenging this planning application on an existing sports site with reasonable infrastructure around it are very limited in my opinion
I think it would be wise to press all sides on this including CCFC and to keep doing so, demand proper answers from all of them. . As often is the case things are never so clear cut as might seem. It looks like there are solutions it just depends who is prepared to pick them up and run with them
Final thoughts. But before I make it, I believe and always have that the Academy is vital to CCFC's future and that it must be protected at all costs. If that means protesting, challenging, fighting for it then lets do it. However lets make sure we are challenging the right people - that seems to be CSF, Wasps, CCC and importantly given the above CCFC. But say the planning is rejected, then CSF gets permission on the pool is the future of CCFC academy more secure or not?
Really wish we didn't even have to consider any of this. One more thing to add to the long and ever growing messes that CCFC gets embroiled in
What do you mean by that hill?
This sorry situation is a reflection of the breakdown in relationships between all the parties.So what do we do then? Any ideas how we can fight it or do we just go all out to try and put all of the blame on CCFC?
This sorry situation is a reflection of the breakdown in relationships between all the parties.
CCFC along with Wasps are both important revenue generators for Coventry & Warwickshire region. Wasps are clearly investing hard cash into Coventry, hence any landlord or property developer will always be interested in realising this. CCFC are struggling for hard cash to invest, BUT has significant potential to generate new income into Coventry IF/When they are successful.
A potential solution is:
* A strategic plan for sport in Coventry covering 8 years that focuses on the role sport can play in the economic regeneration of the city. Attached to this would be concessions and seed funding to develop the necessary infrastructure. This would need REAL PARTNERSHIP working and resources being committed from all parties. This would include land, workforce and cash plus a robust business plan - not the usual pie in the sky projections!
Given the increased funding that can be realised in both Football & Rugby this is a good time to pursue this.
The problem - the dreadful state of relationships between the parties.
Someone needs to get clarification from the FA. You say ccfc don't get exclusive use, but do you know whether if ccfc need it that non-ccfc bookings are cancelled? Do ccfc get primacy? What about those 16-18 year olds thah have left school? Have you ever been down on a Saturday morning when all the pitches are in use. Losing 2 pitches, and probably the main 2 pitches will have a big impact on the academy. What about wasps academy? Won't they want yo use the facilities? Won't most of theirs be school age and only use it in the evenings?We continue to arrange the challenges to all sides, demonstrate if necessary, but at the same time somebody like the SBT needs to "mediate" to get the decision makers at the Alan Higgs Centre to talk and see what can be agreed to safeguard the CCFC academy
At no point did I say give up and at no point did I say it was all CCFC's fault. What is important is the Academy and a solution long term
That will be the key. I doubt the FA are saying when the football club isn't using it nobody else can. What they are saying is when the football club need it they get it.Do ccfc get primacy?
As far as I know the Academy had sole use of the Bottom pitch with the 3g at the top being open for public use when not needed by the Academy. I think that the Academy would have 'first dibs' on the indoor pitch too.Someone needs to get clarification from the FA. You say ccfc don't get exclusive use, but do you know whether if ccfc need it that non-ccfc bookings are cancelled? Do ccfc get primacy? What about those 16-18 year olds thah have left school? Have you ever been down on a Saturday morning when all the pitches are in use. Losing 2 pitches, and probably the main 2 pitches will have a big impact on the academy. What about wasps academy? Won't they want yo use the facilities? Won't most of theirs be school age and only use it in the evenings?
I feel wasps are spinning this.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Saving myself time. In the past when I've mentioned something that doesn't mention Sisu in a bad light it gets brought up and discussed. Wasting valuable gif finding time.
Similar to now.
Is this CWAT? https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08270063Just to clarify and amend
AEHC have a charge over the property which secures community use, CCC own the freehold, AHCT owned the 150 year lease now assigned to CAWAT, CAWAT now own the Alan Higgs Centre and CSF operate the Alan Higgs Centre,
Thats what we should be doing however some people seem to prefer to deflect attention away from some parties and point the finger at SISU. Does nothing to resolve the issues.Question - Do we look for long term solutions to the Academy, pressure decision makers to solve it or do we just say lets moan complain, look for reasons why not then give up ?
So what do we do then? Any ideas how we can fight it or do we just go all out to try and put all of the blame on CCFC?
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?