Non AMP
Sky Blues Talk
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The agreement for Wasps to move here / 2 years on (4 Viewers)

  • Thread starter Nick
  • Start date Jun 2, 2016
Forums New posts
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Next
First Prev 3 of 5 Next Last
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #71
Grendel said:
You know where these commitments came from do you?
Click to expand...

I am assuming the council?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #72
dongonzalos said:
I am assuming the council?
Click to expand...

These were part of the minutes of the council sale. Odd really isn't it they never extended the lease to
Increase ACL assert value previously.
 

Nick

Administrator
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #73
dongonzalos said:
Not sure u understand your first paragraph
Torch's point about the three conditions is a good one though.
Not sure how the current stance by Wasps fits into that!!!
Click to expand...

Well that's the 3 conditions the council voted on selling to them and what the councillors were told.
 
Reactions: torchomatic
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #74
Grendel said:
These were part of the minutes of the council sale. Odd really isn't it they never extended the lease to
Increase ACL assert value previously.
Click to expand...

I don't argue with this one it is a good point and I don't think Wasps stance re the Ricoh fits the criteria.
It especially wouldn't if we asked for negotiations to restart on the proviso that if a deal is reached the litigation would be dropped.
 

Nick

Administrator
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #75
dongonzalos said:
I don't argue with this one it is a good point and I don't think Wasps stance re the Ricoh fits the criteria.
It especially wouldn't if we asked for negotiations to restart on the proviso that if a deal is reached the litigation would be dropped.
Click to expand...

That wasn't Wasps stance, that was the Council's conditions. It was what councillors were told before voting that would happen.
 
A

armybike

Well-Known Member
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #76
torchomatic said:
The commitment that any deal relating to the Ricoh Arena would not be approved unless the following three tests were satisfied:
(1) A good deal for the City
(2) The security and future of Coventry City Football Club
(3) The security and future of Coventry Rugby Club
Click to expand...

How could the events of the next eighteen months had been foreseen?
 

Nick

Administrator
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #77
armybike said:
How could the events of the next eighteen months had been foreseen?
Click to expand...

Surely if it was a "condition" then it would be upheld somehow? It is like saying "you can only have this if you do Y and Z" and then once they get it, they just ignore it.

If one of the conditions of them moving was set by the council, you wouldnt think the council, wasps and higgs would be trying to take turns on the club would you?

Especially as the council seemed to decide on the club and rugby clubs behalf too didnt it?
 
A

armybike

Well-Known Member
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #78
Nick said:
Surely if it was a "condition" then it would be upheld somehow? It is like saying "you can only have this if you do Y and Z" and then once they get it, they just ignore it.

If one of the conditions of them moving was set by the council, you wouldnt think the council, wasps and higgs would be trying to take turns on the club would you?

Especially as the council seemed to decide on the club and rugby clubs behalf too didnt it?
Click to expand...

Doesn't read like an ongoing condition.

It's not saying, you must ensure Y and Z are maintained for time immemorial.

The test re Y and Z were the intention at the point of the decision being made.

Which comes back to my question about how could it have been foreseen what would happen over the proceeding eighteen months.
 

Nick

Administrator
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #79
armybike said:
Doesn't read like an ongoing condition.

It's not saying, you must ensure Y and Z are maintained for time immemorial.

The test re Y and Z were the intention at the point of the decision being made.

Which comes back to my question about how could it have been foreseen what would happen over the proceeding eighteen months.
Click to expand...

So what is the point in a condition then? How was it judged?

Seems a bit pointless for a condition then doesn't it?

Surely if a condition is set "this can only happen if" then somebody should be saying "actually, remember the conditions that were set" rather than "high fives on that".

I think that it says "future" of the football club, how can they determine that if they can't see into the future?

What's the point in a condition if all they have to do is nod and smile until they get what they want and then just do what they want?

Strange.
 
Reactions: stupot07

eastwoodsdustman

Well-Known Member
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #80
armybike said:
How could the events of the next eighteen months had been foreseen?
Click to expand...

Without sounding all Mystic Meg, Its was pretty bloody obvious that it was only a matter of time before the football club would be pushed out by the councils choice of ricoh owner. The clubs return was used as bait by CCC to tip the balance in getting the wasps into the city and the council in all of their guises and forms were always going to railroad things through for them. Anyone who at the time or at any time since thought otherwise is pretty naive.
 

Nick

Administrator
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #81
eastwoodsdustman said:
Without sounding all Mystic Meg, Its was pretty bloody obvious that it was only a matter of time before the football club would be pushed out by the councils choice of ricoh owner. The clubs return was used as bait by CCC to tip the balance in getting the wasps into the city and the council in all of their guises and forms were always going to railroad things through for them. Anyone who at the time or at any time since thought otherwise is pretty naive.
Click to expand...

I think the fact that the stadium was pretty much sold for 250 years pretty much gave it away.
 
A

armybike

Well-Known Member
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #82
Nick said:
So what is the point in a condition then? How was it judged?

Seems a bit pointless for a condition then doesn't it?

Surely if a condition is set "this can only happen if" then somebody should be saying "actually, remember the conditions that were set" rather than "high fives on that".

I think that it says "future" of the football club, how can they determine that if they can't see into the future?

What's the point in a condition if all they have to do is nod and smile until they get what they want and then just do what they want?

Strange.
Click to expand...

Where are the criteria for ensuring the conditions are maintained documented then?

How are they check? How frequently? How are they audited?
 

Nick

Administrator
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #83
armybike said:
Where are the criteria for ensuring the conditions are maintained documented then?

How are they check? How frequently? How are they audited?
Click to expand...
That is what I am getting at because I don't know.

It just seems strange that conditions are set, Wasps nod and say yes and then everything is handed over and they can go against it?
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #84
eastwoodsdustman said:
Without sounding all Mystic Meg, Its was pretty bloody obvious that it was only a matter of time before the football club would be pushed out by the councils choice of ricoh owner. The clubs return was used as bait by CCC to tip the balance in getting the wasps into the city and the council in all of their guises and forms were always going to railroad things through for them. Anyone who at the time or at any time since thought otherwise is pretty naive.
Click to expand...
Yeah many saw it coming 2 years ago.

Now everyone's lapping up the PR. Got to hand it to thr higgs, wasps, CSF, etc they brilliant at playing the CCFC fans


Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
Reactions: torchomatic and Nick

Nick

Administrator
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #85
stupot07 said:
Yeah many saw it coming 2 years ago.

Now everyone's lapping up the PR. Got to hand it to thr higgs, wasps, CSF, etc they brilliant at playing the CCFC fans


Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, the PR has been nothing short of genius. To be able to get city fans actually doing their pr and defending them just because they hate sisu. They have managed to get people who are so against moving teams and franchising defending them doing it.
 
A

armybike

Well-Known Member
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #86
eastwoodsdustman said:
Without sounding all Mystic Meg, Its was pretty bloody obvious that it was only a matter of time before the football club would be pushed out by the councils choice of ricoh owner. The clubs return was used as bait by CCC to tip the balance in getting the wasps into the city and the council in all of their guises and forms were always going to railroad things through for them. Anyone who at the time or at any time since thought otherwise is pretty naive.
Click to expand...

This will be the return that Fisher said would never happen?

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-chief-left-ricoh-3869400
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #87
Who moderates the CT? Neither of my comments have been published - they weren't abusing or slanderous and didn't contain any swearing.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
Reactions: torchomatic

Nick

Administrator
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #88
armybike said:
This will be the return that Fisher said would never happen?

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-chief-left-ricoh-3869400
Click to expand...

Ah same again when people start discussing it, MUST GET IT BACK TO SISU QUICK. Why not post the bit about ACL / The council wanting to build up trust with the club while they were selling it off to Wasps on the sly?

Does posting that link really justify anything?

The different is, yes Fisher was bullshitting. The difference is, that wasn't to councillors voting on something was it?

Does anybody actually know what the point in putting conditions on it was then?
 
Reactions: torchomatic and stupot07
A

armybike

Well-Known Member
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #89
Nick said:
That is what I am getting at because I don't know.

It just seems strange that conditions are set, Wasps nod and say yes and then everything is handed over and they can go against it?
Click to expand...

It wasn't an on going requirement, there's no grey area it's that black and white.

However this doesn't prove any master plan to oust CCFC, it's just the kind of non-committal jargon that's used in countless documents.

It's not the content, just how it sounds that matters.

Yes that's absolutely arse about face, but if conditions are rigid and need to be maintained/reviewed then it opens people up to possible legal action.

I'm not saying I agree with this - but it's how documents are constructed - wiggle room being the main priority.
 

eastwoodsdustman

Well-Known Member
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #90
armybike said:
This will be the return that Fisher said would never happen?

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-chief-left-ricoh-3869400
Click to expand...

Well that makes it all ok then doesn't it! Fisher goes back on something he said. The council have been duplicitous in everything they've said with regards to the club, Crfc and their dealings with Wasps. Its ok though as Fisher said we'd never go back. FFS point scoring over minor stuff is irrelevant. The councils underhanded and shady dealings however are truly awful. I don't know how the people who are supposed to represent those who put them in power can look at themselves in the mirror or sleep at night.
 
Reactions: torchomatic and stupot07

Nick

Administrator
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #91
armybike said:
It wasn't an on going requirement, there's no grey area it's that black and white.

However this doesn't prove any master plan to oust CCFC, it's just the kind of non-committal jargon that's used in countless documents.

It's not the content, just how it sounds that matters.

Yes that's absolutely arse about face, but if conditions are rigid and need to be maintained/reviewed then it opens people up to possible legal action.

I'm not saying I agree with this - but it's how documents are constructed - wiggle room being the main priority.
Click to expand...

But how does it work if they are putting that in front of councillors?

For example if somebody put something in front of councillors saying "If this happens, the schools wont close" and then they all vote FOR it and then 2 weeks later they close all the schools?
 
A

armybike

Well-Known Member
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #92
Nick said:
Ah same again when people start discussing it, MUST GET IT BACK TO SISU QUICK. Why not post the bit about ACL / The council wanting to build up trust with the club while they were selling it off to Wasps on the sly?

Does posting that link really justify anything?

The different is, yes Fisher was bullshitting. The difference is, that wasn't to councillors voting on something was it?

Does anybody actually know what the point in putting conditions on it was then?
Click to expand...

Honestly, you need to stop the paranoia.

Tim Fisher is the reason CCFC are on their arse and why people refuse to see this is beyond me.

He's bullshitted the fans repeatedly and allowed CCFC to be shafted in the process by allowing others the opportunity to fill the gaps he keeps professing will be left.

He's even still trying to say a potential out of city site for a stadium and training facility is in the mix.

He's all but rubber-stamping the Wasps application for the Higgs centre himself.

Also, how exactly was the Ricoh sold on the sly?

Business is done behind close doors - that's just standard practice.

What we're the conditions/details of the contract agreed for CCFC to return to the Ricoh? Do we know the specific terms of this? If not, why not.
 

Nick

Administrator
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #93
armybike said:
Honestly, you need to stop the paranoia.

Tim Fisher is the reason CCFC are on their arse and why people refuse to see this is beyond me.

He's bullshitted the fans repeatedly and allowed CCFC to be shafted in the process by allowing others the opportunity to fill the gaps he keeps professing will be left.

He's even still trying to say a potential out of city site for a stadium and training facility is in the mix.

He's all but rubber-stamping the Wasps application for the Higgs centre himself.

Also, how exactly was the Ricoh sold on the sly?

Business is done behind close doors - that's just standard practice.

What we're the conditions/details of the contract agreed for CCFC to return to the Ricoh? Do we know the specific terms of this? If not, why not.
Click to expand...

The sly bit was that in public it was all "we want to build trust now with ccfc". The bullshit works in all directions, CCFC were on their arse even before Fisher. Tanned Ken wasn't exactly a hero was he? Nor was Ranson.
 
A

armybike

Well-Known Member
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #94
eastwoodsdustman said:
Well that makes it all ok then doesn't it! Fisher goes back on something he said. The council have been duplicitous in everything they've said with regards to the club, Crfc and their dealings with Wasps. Its ok though as Fisher said we'd never go back. FFS point scoring over minor stuff is irrelevant. The councils underhanded and shady dealings however are truly awful. I don't know how the people who are supposed to represent those who put them in power can look at themselves in the mirror or sleep at night.
Click to expand...

How many of the things Fisher has said have come to fruition?
 
A

armybike

Well-Known Member
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #95
Nick said:
But how does it work if they are putting that in front of councillors?

For example if somebody put something in front of councillors saying "If this happens, the schools wont close" and then they all vote FOR it and then 2 weeks later they close all the schools?
Click to expand...

Nobody in the council would put something that specific before the councillors.

Read the terms again of the Wasps deal, they are totally non-committal.

They're just saying - today, it's our intention to make sure all the parties are going to be OK.

Document signed and then filed to never see the light of day again.

Also, and this honestly isn't intended to be condescending, but do would have any knowledge/experience working with councils?

Councils are run by the officers - the back ground staff - the Cllrs are just the face of the operation who have to try and appease the public but get all their info given to them or guidance about how to proceed.

The officers are a constant and ever few years potentially the name of the party running the show might change, but those in the back officers getting everything together aren't changed if a different party are in 'power'.
 
A

armybike

Well-Known Member
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #96
eastwoodsdustman said:
Well that makes it all ok then doesn't it!
Click to expand...

Nope, definitely not.
 

Nick

Administrator
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #97
armybike said:
Nobody in the council would put something that specific before the councillors.

Read the terms again of the Wasps deal, they are totally non-committal.

They're just saying - today, it's our intention to make sure all the parties are going to be OK.

Document signed and then filed to never see the light of day again.

Also, and this honestly isn't intended to be condescending, but do would have any knowledge/experience working with councils?

Councils are run by the officers - the back ground staff - the Cllrs are just the face of the operation who have to try and appease the public but get all their info given to them or guidance about how to proceed.

The officers are a constant and ever few years potentially the name of the party running the show might change, but those in the back officers getting everything together aren't changed if a different party are in 'power'.
Click to expand...

Is that like when Lucas was misadvised by West and Reeves for example?

So who is giving the guidance and telling them what to vote for?

Surely on that day they could see things weren't going to be ok? The same as the city fans who weren't queuing up to get a black and yellow flag saw?
 
A

armybike

Well-Known Member
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #98
Nick said:
The sly bit was that in public it was all "we want to build trust now with ccfc". The bullshit works in all directions, CCFC were on their arse even before Fisher. Tanned Ken wasn't exactly a hero was he? Nor was Ranson.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was bullshit on all sides and that's the exact point I'm making.

However, the BS from the other side has given other free rein to buy the Ricoh and build a training facility at Higgs.

We all know Wasps will get planning permission to build there and it's got nothing to do with back handers or favours being called in.

If a planning application is submitted and falls within planning law/regulations the council have absolutely no power to reject it.

If they did the application would go to the Planning Inspectorate, they'd rubber-stamp it and the council would potentially pick up the applicants costs which could be tens of thousands of pounds.

So, the development is still built, but the councils are having to also pay these costs.
 

Nick

Administrator
  • Jun 9, 2016
  • #99
armybike said:
Yes, it was bullshit on all sides and that's the exact point I'm making.

However, the BS from the other side has given other free rein to buy the Ricoh and build a training facility at Higgs.

We all know Wasps will get planning permission to build there and it's got nothing to do with back handers or favours being called in.

If a planning application is submitted and falls within planning law/regulations the council have absolutely no power to reject it.

If they did the application would go to the Planning Inspectorate, they'd rubber-stamp it and the council would potentially pick up the applicants costs which could be tens of thousands of pounds.

So, the development is still built, but the councils are having to also pay these costs.
Click to expand...

It isn't really free reign though, as they could have done it if they wanted to. All it has done has given them a perfectly PR opportunity that they can reel out every time they get questioned about it that takes the attention away from them.
 
A

armybike

Well-Known Member
  • Jun 10, 2016
  • #100
Nick said:
Is that like when Lucas was misadvised by West and Reeves for example?

So who is giving the guidance and telling them what to vote for?

Surely on that day they could see things weren't going to be ok? The same as the city fans who weren't queuing up to get a black and yellow flag saw?
Click to expand...

I'll be totally honest, I'm not sure of the specifics of the example you've given.

With regards the vote, it would depend if it was a free or whipped vote - from memory it was a free vote in this case.

If it's a free vote you get to decided based on what you've seen heard which way to vote based on your own opinion, if its whipped you vote the way you've been told to by your party.

How are they not OK for the council, not wanting to seem flippant? The money they'd lent out has been returned and a little bit on top.

This is a situation some thought would never happen and some were actually hoping it wouldn't as a big F you to the council.

They've also off loaded the Ricoh which had, in my opinion, become nothing but a burden to them.
 

Nick

Administrator
  • Jun 10, 2016
  • #101
armybike said:
I'll be totally honest, I'm not sure of the specifics of the example you've given.

With regards the vote, it would depend if it was a free or whipped vote - from memory it was a free vote in this case.

If it's a free vote you get to decided based on what you've seen heard which way to vote based on your own opinion, if its whipped you vote the way you've been told to by your party.

How are they not OK for the council, not wanting to seem flippant? The money they'd lent out has been returned and a little bit on top.

This is a situation some thought would never happen and some were actually hoping it wouldn't as a big F you to the council.

They've also off loaded the Ricoh which had, in my opinion, become nothing but a burden to them.
Click to expand...

But then all I am getting at is if it is a free vote, and they have a piece of paper that says "the football club will be ok, everything will be ok, the world will be amazing" then wouldn't that affect the vote? I am not saying it would or wouldn't, just wondering.

Compared to if it said "we are probably going to lose the football club, the rugby club will now be limited to how far they can ever go etc".
 
A

armybike

Well-Known Member
  • Jun 10, 2016
  • #102
Nick said:
But then all I am getting at is if it is a free vote, and they have a piece of paper that says "the football club will be ok, everything will be ok, the world will be amazing" then wouldn't that affect the vote? I am not saying it would or wouldn't, just wondering.

Compared to if it said "we are probably going to lose the football club, the rugby club will now be limited to how far they can ever go etc".
Click to expand...

I think they'd have been perfectly aware it meant nothing and had no long term meaning.

It was just political flannel to soften the blow for the public.

It written to sounds like everyone is going to be looked after - but it doesn't actually say that.

The fact it's been raised here demonstrates that people believed that's what it meant, but as has been pointed out it actually just meant at the time of the decision being made.

You'd find hundreds, if not thousands of similarly worded documents in council buildings across the country - or actually more likely in their off site storage facility as they'd likely not see the light of day again.
 

Nick

Administrator
  • Jun 10, 2016
  • #103
armybike said:
I think they'd have been perfectly aware it meant nothing and had no long term meaning.

It was just political flannel to soften the blow for the public.

It written to sounds like everyone is going to be looked after - but it doesn't actually say that.

The fact it's been raised here demonstrates that people believed that's what it meant, but as has been pointed out it actually just meant at the time of the decision being made.

You'd find hundreds, if not thousands of similarly worded documents in council buildings across the country - or actually more likely in their off site storage facility as they'd likely not see the light of day again.
Click to expand...

The other interesting part was the but where the council approved the lease extension the same time as the share sale (which was a couple of weeks before the higgs did anything wasn't it?). What is all that about?
 
A

armybike

Well-Known Member
  • Jun 10, 2016
  • #104
Nick said:
The other interesting part was the but where the council approved the lease extension the same time as the share sale (which was a couple of weeks before the higgs did anything wasn't it?). What is all that about?
Click to expand...

The decision to extend the lease may well have been a condition of the sale, I honestly don't know.

Again I don't think this was an F you aimed at SISU/CCFC more part of the negotiations.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
  • Jun 10, 2016
  • #105
armybike said:
How could the events of the next eighteen months had been foreseen?
Click to expand...
Christ almighty
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Next
First Prev 3 of 5 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Share:
Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
  • Default Style
  • Contact us
  • Terms and rules
  • Privacy policy
  • Help
  • Home
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2021 XenForo Ltd.
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Home
  • Forums
    • New posts
    • Search forums
  • What's new
    • New posts
    • Latest activity
  • Members
    • Current visitors
  • Donate to the Season Ticket Fund
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?