So now we know

Moff

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2011
5,431
2,360
163
Deepest Warwickshire
We couldn’t have expanded HR.

Richardson was well out of his depth though.
There was potential with the Sky Blue stand, and at one point talk of expanding it.
A few thousand more and it wouldnt have been far off the capacity at the soulless dump that is the Ricoh.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2011
24,924
15,083
263
Coventry, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
There was potential with the Sky Blue stand, and at one point talk of expanding it.
A few thousand more and it wouldnt have been far off the capacity at the soulless dump that is the Ricoh.
I believe it was about whether you could get that many people in and out the ground rather than whether there was space. Also ironically about opening up other income streams.

Also at the time the council wanted to push sport. We moved the Blaze in, offered Crusaders the Sky Dome (Donaldson refused), think we did stuff with the Butts but can’t recall.
 
Last edited:

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2011
24,924
15,083
263
Coventry, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
There's plenty out there, it's all or nothing. It softened later on in the process to a hint that a long lease would do.

It's Seppala's USP, hardball and all or nothing on the big plays - always been the way.
Yeah as you know my position for a while has been Seppala entered negotiations as if her opponent was a distressed company and not a local authority.

The JR and State Aid are extensions of that lack of understanding of local authorities and having people in her ear that are basically the green pen brigade will just have exacerbated that.

The smart move would’ve been a love bomb. Politicians like to feel important and don’t take kindly to people trying to bully them. Ah well, too late now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orca

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
Apr 23, 2013
21,963
12,342
363
I believe it was about whether you could get that many people in and out the ground rather than whether there was space. Also ironically about opening up other income streams.
Justifications to move really as a political decision involving Robinson as much as anything.

Plus the original plan was genuinely different to HR. Once it got watered down, there was less need to move beyond saving face and getting some quick cash to help the club tick over, and have the directors cling on to the idea they may have got their cash back.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2011
24,924
15,083
263
Coventry, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
Justifications to move really as a political decision involving Robinson as much as anything.

Plus the original plan was genuinely different to HR. Once it got watered down, there was less need to move beyond saving face and getting some quick cash to help the club tick over, and have the directors cling on to the idea they may have got their cash back.
Fact is no expansion to HR would’ve passed planning. If you wanted bigger, you’d have to have moved.
 

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2013
2,911
441
133
Coventry
Thabk you. I literally bored myself to sleep last night reading the JR Appeal verdict as it was the only non SBT link for ‘Seppala “unencumbered freehold”’ on Google.

I now understand the JR and the KPMG valuation a lot more though! Surprised KPMG basically value the freehold at £0.6-1m, something to do with ACL paying £21m up front (this is the point I fell asleep). They call the 250 lease a freehold in principle which is fair, but makes you wonder why a 125 year lease isn’t that also (which was offered to Sisu I believe).
Here you go, so that you don't need to add '(which was offered to SISU I believe)', this is a link to the club website that has the draft Heads of Terms that were agreed between CCC and SISU, signed by Laura Deering, which includes the Council extending the lease to 125 years, amongst other things.

 
  • Like
Reactions: shmmeee and Orca

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
Apr 23, 2013
21,963
12,342
363
Here you go, so that you don't need to add '(which was offered to SISU I believe)', this is a link to the club website that has the draft Heads of Terms that were agreed between CCC and SISU, signed by Laura Deering, which includes the Council extending the lease to 125 years, amongst other things.

Love the paragraph about keeping in confidence the contents of the letter - the only bit which *is* legally binding!
 

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2013
2,911
441
133
Coventry
Love the paragraph about keeping in confidence the contents of the letter - the only bit which *is* legally binding!
yeah I guess similar wording is in the current NDA, but shows that the detail can come out eventually. I guess the court case(s) brought this document out in the open.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2011
24,924
15,083
263
Coventry, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
Here you go, so that you don't need to add '(which was offered to SISU I believe)', this is a link to the club website that has the draft Heads of Terms that were agreed between CCC and SISU, signed by Laura Deering, which includes the Council extending the lease to 125 years, amongst other things.

That fell apart because of the bank debt thing didn’t it?
 

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2013
2,911
441
133
Coventry
That fell apart because of the bank debt thing didn’t it?
I think the judgement said it was because neither side wanted to push on with it, and it's likely the bank debt was a large part of that, but not only that. The only point I'm making is that SISU knew a long lease was available, and one that they could agree with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orca and shmmeee
Jul 29, 2020
54
20
8
Justifications to move really as a political decision involving Robinson as much as anything.

Plus the original plan was genuinely different to HR. Once it got watered down, there was less need to move beyond saving face and getting some quick cash to help the club tick over, and have the directors cling on to the idea they may have got their cash back.
I think the council needed the Arena project to go ahead as was key to its regeneration project for north west Coventry and there was political capital to be made.
 

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
Apr 23, 2013
21,963
12,342
363
I think the council needed the Arena project to go ahead as was key to its regeneration project for north west Coventry and there was political capital to be made.
Ultimately it was Dave Nellist who had the casting vote, and he insisted on more regeneration being in the plan before agreeing.

McGinnity, meanwhile, warned the club would die if it wasn't passed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sky Blue Pete

usskyblue

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2012
3,694
4,129
163
Tampa
This seemingly endless two man ragandbone show wouldn’t be so fucking nauseating if we didn’t have a huge stinking pile of information shit that wasn’t actually SISU’s fault.

Or are we playing ‘Likes for semantics’?
 
Jul 29, 2020
54
20
8
It’s my opinion based on talking to people who made the decision (and who made that decision based on talking to the people in charge of planning at the time) and my understanding of planning law through work, yeah.
Thanks for your opinion.

I think you will find the planning reality a little different to what you may have been led to believe.

HR was an historic sports stadium, built before any meaningful planning legislation existed. The stadium had a long history of being licensed for and hosting crowds far in excess of it's final capacity. The legacy capacities alone will probably have been sufficient to successfully argue that the existing infrastructure was sufficient to support a modest capacity increase.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2011
24,924
15,083
263
Coventry, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
Thanks for your opinion.

I think you will find the planning reality a little different to what you may have been led to believe.

HR was an historic sports stadium, built before any meaningful planning legislation existed. The stadium had a long history of being licensed for and hosting crowds far in excess of it's final capacity. The legacy capacities alone will probably have been sufficient to successfully argue that the existing infrastructure was sufficient to support a modest capacity increase.
Well that’s your opinion and thanks for it. Doesn’t mean as much as the people making the decision though.

Also “legacy capacity” means nothing when people didn’t have cars before and planning law has changed. Millions of examples of things that were legal no longer being legal.
 

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
Apr 23, 2013
21,963
12,342
363
Thanks for your opinion.

I think you will find the planning reality a little different to what you may have been led to believe.

HR was an historic sports stadium, built before any meaningful planning legislation existed. The stadium had a long history of being licensed for and hosting crowds far in excess of it's final capacity. The legacy capacities alone will probably have been sufficient to successfully argue that the existing infrastructure was sufficient to support a modest capacity increase.
Would have been cheaper to purchase the housing around it then build the Ricoh, anyway.

A move to 28k wouldn't have been excessive and, once the Ricoh project was downscaled, it wouldn't have been that much of a loss anyway
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2011
24,924
15,083
263
Coventry, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
Would have been cheaper to purchase the housing around it then build the Ricoh, anyway.

A move to 28k wouldn't have been excessive and, once the Ricoh project was downscaled, it wouldn't have been that much of a loss anyway
If you’re only going to mid/high twenties maybe, but 30k+ IMO you’d never have got it through. Same reason the Butts was never really on. The surrounding infrastructure just wouldn’t support it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RingoCCFC
Jul 29, 2020
54
20
8
Ultimately it was Dave Nellist who had the casting vote, and he insisted on more regeneration being in the plan before agreeing.
Wasn't Dave Nellist a councillor for the Ward that hosted Highfield Road? His decision has had dire economic consequences for his former Ward. I wonder if he regrets it?
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2008
25,565
13,910
363
Coventry
Also at the time the council wanted to push sport. We moved the Blaze in, offered Crusaders the Sky Dome (Donaldson refused), think we did stuff with the Butts but can’t recall.
Thought the Crusaders got kicked out of the SkyDome by Planet Ice when they didn't join the BBL? Think that was the reason they gave officially although there was also a falling out over the disastrous first game the Crusaders played there. Was a complete farce with water on the court and ended up having to be abandoned as it was too dangerous.
 

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
Apr 23, 2013
21,963
12,342
363
Wasn't Dave Nellist a councillor for the Ward that hosted Highfield Road? His decision has had dire economic consequences for his former Ward. I wonder if he regrets it?
I don't know tbh, but I assume the (pretty dismal) housing estate was also seen as being key to regenerating that area. What's often left out, however, in assessments of the benefits of new grounds is indeed what's lost. Developers don't like doing net gain rather than looking in isolation, funnily enough.

Tbf the general setup of those flats, with 'pitch' in the middle is a pretty decent idea and it's quite airy, but it's not aged well!
 
Jul 29, 2020
54
20
8
If you’re only going to mid/high twenties maybe, but 30k+ IMO you’d never have got it through. Same reason the Butts was never really on. The surrounding infrastructure just wouldn’t support it.
Before you claimed no expansion to HR would have passed planning. Now you say some expansion might have passed. Does this mean you concede your first post was not true?

For what it is worth, my opinion is expansion up to 30,000 will have been virtually impossible for the planning authority to argue against on lack of infrastructure grounds.
 
Jul 29, 2020
54
20
8
I don't know tbh, but I assume the (pretty dismal) housing estate was also seen as being key to regenerating that area. What's often left out, however, in assessments of the benefits of new grounds is indeed what's lost. Developers don't like doing net gain rather than looking in isolation, funnily enough.

Tbf the general setup of those flats, with 'pitch' in the middle is a pretty decent idea and it's quite airy, but it's not aged well!
I think the housing estate was a nice idea (retaining the pitch area). Problem is HR Was in the wrong location and none of the football ground infrastructure (aside from the pitch area) was retained to provide a sense of place. If an art deco stand had been available to retain and repurpose to mixed residential and commercial accommodation it might have been a different outcome.

I was also thinking about the loss of employment that was associated with HR events (at the stadium and surrounding businesses) and the loss of amenities (primarily shops and pubs).
 
Jul 29, 2020
54
20
8
Well that’s your opinion and thanks for it. Doesn’t mean as much as the people making the decision though.

Also “legacy capacity” means nothing when people didn’t have cars before and planning law has changed. Millions of examples of things that were legal no longer being legal.
Do I understand that you claim to have had cosy chats planning officials about a veto on any expansion to HR? Do you want me to believe a senior planning officer told you about a future potential planning decision without having even seen the particulars of what might have been applied for? Do you even understand the legalities of what you claim?

The fact HR had regularly hosted much larger crowds than it's final licensed capacity is highly significant for planning.

As for your claim about cars. First, HR wasn't dependent on significant volumes of customers arriving on site by car. Second, are you seriously trying to claim people in Coventry didn't have cars in the 1970s.

There is 'working in planning' (copying plans and making the tea) and there is 'working in planning' (couple of relevant degrees, experience of delivering large projects over decades)...
 
Jul 25, 2020
6
7
3
Living away from the coventry area I have long suspected CCC as anti the football club their must be enough support from city and football fans in general to vote this lot of bastards out at the next local elections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CCFC54321

RingoCCFC

Active Member
Aug 2, 2020
83
33
68
The council as clearly mentioned played a pivotal role in pushing the Ricoh project for their own political agenda that would benefit them both politically and financially due to funding. The whole SISU/WASPS facade is just a smoke bomb behind the real issue in my eyes, the council seem more dodgy than the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in the way they've went about things. I find it very bazaar that still to date Wasps have not even changed the seating or tried to make the Ricoh themed to be their 'permanent home'. I still think they're waiting for the right opportunity to arise in London and seen this as a potential moneymaker which it is! Look at the estimated value of the stadium and what they got it for, then the whole financial funding behind them being able to purchase it was clearly not made with full confidence of being able to repay the loans. The whole dropping their city to up and move added into the mixing pool with all of this really makes me question why people are favoring them over SISU?

I'm in no way saying SISU are angels, I personally think they were out to penny pinch themselves and got shafted out of the deal which they did and Wasps seen it as a clear money making opportunity if Coventry were to rebuild their finances they could have us as a silver spoon renter whilst eating into our revenue/GP whilst knowing we'd one day want to buy it back at a clear profit to them! SISU aren't to blame for the move either clearly, CCC are snakes in the grass at the end of the day 'City of culture' and they don't give a donkeys about their biggest primary sporting team that most their voters support? As elected Councillors it should be a commitment for them to support CCFC and not hurt our club solely based on their dealings with the owners.

This whole NDA shitzfestival if it ever went public would show another side to both parties. SISU haven't been the best but it's in their best interest to financially do whats most viable for the clubs financial stability, don't tell me if you were in their shoes you'd hold a grudge either if it'd financially ruin you... which makes me think Wasps seen the promotion and the money that came with it as a sign to demand more. Again this whole legal fiasco surrounding getting it done on time is another brick in the wall to many for me I truly didn't see this return happening as they would have been pushing the paperwork way beforehand.

HR expansion never would have worked to that extent, it was never to be allowed to work for a valid reason as people had their pockets lined elsewhere. The issue is no one posting on this thread had the ability to stop that or what has happened, truthfully I'm just shocked at the councils lack of support to help secure a return to benefit the fans.... Most large cities tend to be very supportive of sporting teams? CCC seem to want to see the club burn.