'No comment'.
And that's what people seem to be ignoring. It isn't just a case of them dropping the current legals, it will go on long beyond that. Much as I want a deal done, I expect most here understand it will be far more complicated than that, with much more to consider than whats laughingly being referred to as an "olive branch".
Be interesting to learn what the "terms" are for dropping the legals. We have the short version of them, but it's certain there will be a much longer version to be discussed. If it all fails, SISU's ducks are already lined up to point the finger of blame. This statement is part of it for sure.
I'm definitely sure it 100% won't be along the same lines of the council's, without a doubt.Well at least we'll get to see the Trust's response shortly after too I guess!
I'm definitely sure it 100% won't be along the same lines of the council's, without a doubt.
They wouldn't be that obvious, would they?
That's why he said the council could look for possible places and make suggestions.
I'm sure they are better resourced to do that than most people.
Maybe you are intentionally trying to miss the point, as per usual?
Did you read the thing? The implication is that they've identified several sites and they've fallen fallen through as sellers don't want to be on the wrong side of the council. The council could say they support a new stadium and and they will assuage any fears of landowners.Why is it up to someone else to identify a site. If SISU have genuinely been looking for years and can't find one then there probably isn't one or they must be staggeringly incompedent.
Why is it up to someone else to identify a site. If SISU have genuinely been looking for years and can't find one then there probably isn't one or they must be staggeringly incompedent.
It was Nick who focussed on the council facilitating the pie in the sky arena.Did you read the thing? The implication is that they've identified several sites and they've fallen fallen through as sellers don't want to be on the wrong side of the council. The council could say they support a new stadium and and they will assuage any fears of landowners.
Anyway, you're focusing on the wrong thing. I'm sure they're not building a new stadium and this is something they can use as part of negotiations for a favourable rental.
Have you read the document though?It was Nick who focussed on the council facilitating the pie in the sky arena.
Read the document. Then read my response to Dart above.On the comments earlier in the thread concerning a landowner (current or prospective) getting outline planning consent prior to the purchase of a site, that application would still be required to be an open process (i.e. statutory consultation with parish/town council, police, highways, Natural England, etc.). I don't believe there is an option in planning law which allows an application to be dealt with confidentially (e.g due to commercial sensitivity), but i may be wrong on that.
So if SISU had EVER launched a formal planning process for any prospective site, it would be a matter of public record.
They could, of course, have had informal discussions with the planning authority, which wouldn't have been made public.
It was Nick who focussed on the council facilitating the pie in the sky arena.
It's all houses isn't it?
I don't think it's big enough but i think the former tax office site near the station would be great
and before somebody like Tony pipes up, no i don't really believe it'll happen
Build it on part of the old Woodlands school complex.
Build it as a community sports centre/stadium alongside the current facilities.
Will never happen though. The council are too busy wanting to build 5000 houses in that part of Coventry.
The statement should read the below;
> We agree to support CCFC and SISU in their attempts to find adequate land to build a new stadium and retail facilities.
(Which will lead to the second point of the statement)
> Medium-term agreement between Wasps & CCFC (SISU) to be discussed on confirmation that litigation has been dropped - which in my opinion will be a longer agreement than the five years SISU have suggested.
What's the betting it doesn't say any of the above?
The statement should read the below;
> We agree to support CCFC and SISU in their attempts to find adequate land to build a new stadium and retail facilities.
(Which will lead to the second point of the statement)
> Medium-term agreement between Wasps & CCFC (SISU) to be discussed on confirmation that litigation has been dropped - which in my opinion will be a longer agreement than the five years SISU have suggested.
What's the betting it doesn't say any of the above?
So when do the Number One Fans' Organisation In The World make a statement?
Surely its the Council that require confirmation that the legals have been stopped first before moving on to any agreement with Wasps?
Would be very surprised if what you have put is the statement that is issued by CCC
Moz was on CWR this morning
In terms of a statement it would make sense to me to issue one after the Westminster meeting later today.
Surely its the Council that require confirmation that the legals have been stopped first before moving on to any agreement with Wasps?
Would be very surprised if what you have put is the statement that is issued by CCC
On the comments earlier in the thread concerning a landowner (current or prospective) getting outline planning consent prior to the purchase of a site, that application would still be required to be an open process (i.e. statutory consultation with parish/town council, police, highways, Natural England, etc.). I don't believe there is an option in planning law which allows an application to be dealt with confidentially (e.g due to commercial sensitivity), but i may be wrong on that.
So if SISU had EVER launched a formal planning process for any prospective site, it would be a matter of public record.
They could, of course, have had informal discussions with the planning authority, which wouldn't have been made public.
What we all (well most of us) want is a resolution of the current stand-off so that CCFC can continue to play in Coventry.
That means all parties have to negotiate
That is more important than who said, who did what years ago.
Unfortunately some people are too deeply committed to their entrenched views.
Like dogs they have to piss all over everything just to prove they've been there.
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?