"One of the several options at the study stage is having the Sky Blues as tenants here. We have stated in writing that there would be a number of conditions to this, designed to protect Coventry Rugby’s interests, before it could be realised:- any costs associated with the project would not be borne by CRL or BPAL; the issue of primacy of tenancy would have to be resolved to our satisfaction; the pitch would have to meet all requirements of the RFU, the RL and ourselves; CRL would retain control and ownership of the site through BPAL; we prefer a stadium of not more than 12,000 capacity. Also, as I have already stated elsewhere, we will not deal with SISU.
Those are tough obstacles to be overcome but if they were, it would result in a top-class City Centre sporting venue serving multiple sports and community use"
I am so against BPA and I can't think of a reason why other than there is a perfectly good stadium up the A444.
Proof of funds to do what?
Fisher dropped out the Butts issue at Mondays meeting simply to deflect the more searching questions he was worried about and buy time to waste time he was successful I'll give him credit for that. He knew the chair was weak and exploited it.
You don't need to, that's not what he's said. He's selected his language very precisely. As long as he and CRFC only deal with the club he's not dealing with SISU even if they are pulling the strings in the background.
Carefully selected wording so he doesn't piss off the council if a plan not involving CCFC is that way forward for CRFC but leaves the door open if it is.
Lot of wishful thinking on this site. Over the last 9 years the wish list had zero fulfilment.Did anybody really believe BPA would happen ? Reading through this post looks to me some still do !!
Fisher dropped out the Butts issue at Mondays meeting simply to deflect the more searching questions he was worried about and buy time to waste time he was successful I'll give him credit for that. He knew the chair was weak and exploited it.
So what's in it for Sharp?
So what's in it for Sharp?
Exactly, set up a joint venture prop co owned by Otium and CRFC. He's not dealing with SISU then.
Sharp also said the club has offered to act as a mediator between CCFC and various other parties and was clear that a ground share would only be agreed if there was “an end to the current disputes involving the owners of CCFC and the city council and other parties.”
So how does Fisher and CCFC get around this comment
In my opinion this is a ploy in SISU's game. When mediation fails, they can use this to their advantage, surely?While SISU are attached to the club we as fans and club are going to suffer, plain and simple. Tim again got his words out before any real statement came out from CRFC, i suppose so he could get out the room with his head still attached during Mondays farce. I bet Sharp is thinking that bastard again has put me in a position where i have to explain his words, as is not a straight forward as Tim spouting "ITS ON" and 25,000 capacity once all done.
Lets face it Tim could not say NO ground, NO talks with Wasps oh and by the way CRFC will not deal with SISU, but he again brings a distortion of the truth to bide time for him and his bosses. He is a true manipulator on words, and will defend his interests till he walks with SISU. Sharp has covered his and the rugby clubs arse and without doubt has stated the football club will own nothing if any deal is worked out.
We are no further along in the real truth about our club if we are honest, even after Tim Butts statement far too many questions and not enough answers, but we are used to this under this current ownership.
"any costs associated with the project would not be borne by CRL or BPAL"
This for starters and then you have the build cost on top of that. Hows that going to be funded? Where's the split in sharing that cost? Where is our share going to come from? Tim says his has the investors in place are these investors outside of SISU? If so why do we need SISU again?
In my opinion this is a ploy in SISU's game. When mediation fails, they can use this to their advantage, surely?
Side step, shuffle shuffle shuffle, side step.
Seriously though that could be interpreted as drop the legal action. Not saying that is what he means but it could be taken that way.
And if Duggins refuses they can blame the Council?Why should it fail ? It cannot start unless Duggins decides to talk?
When Tim talks about his investors, it doesn't have to be a SISU company - at least theoretically. The main aim is to get CCFC self reliant and not a worry for Joy. If they get a home with an income stream that allows them to compete at least to League 1 standard, then Joy's asset has increased in value without necessarily taking more risk. She is not forced to own the prop company. Not saying that is the case, but SISU don't have to be partners in a joint venture prop co.
And if Duggins refuses they can blame the Council?
Why would you need investors to rent somewhere.Does any one have the transcript of Monday ? I thought he said there are investors?
I do not believe anyone says SISU are the investors except the speculators on here
In my opinion this is a ploy in SISU's game. When mediation fails, they can use this to their advantage, surely?
He told us today one possibility was for two new stands to be built in the first instance, with a potential initial capacity of 15,000. The ground currently has one stand and a 4,000 capacity.
He added it was also possible that the ground could be expanded by increments depending on growth and demand, notably were Coventry City Football Club to win promotions.
He said one concern was that the football club’s desire for a 25,000 stadium may be considered too large for Coventry rugby club present crowds, but said nothing was ruled out.
You don't think he's an idiot but you think he's spending time evaluating a groundshare with CCFC while insisting on a playing surface we couldn't use?
I'm a bit confused about him saying he'll never deal with SISU but they agreed to have us run a ticket office from the BPA?
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?