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 Butts - CRFC Confirms it is willing to join mediation talks (1 Viewer)

  • Thread starter ccfc92
  • Start date Mar 20, 2017
Forums New posts
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • …
  • 14
Next
First Prev 2 of 14 Next Last
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 20, 2017
  • #36
bradwellskyblues said:
one thing not really picked up on at meeting was Fisher said he has the investment in place for this project would love to know more about that
Click to expand...

There was investment in place for the new stadium aswell. You may recall, Joy had the people with cash ready to go and she was excited about the project.
Not to sure what happened with that really.
Anyway let's forget that we have been promised this all before we will be at the Butts!!!
 
Reactions: skybluetony176 and Brylowes
B

bradwellskyblues

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 20, 2017
  • #37
dongonzalos said:
There was investment in place for the new stadium aswell. You may recall, Joy had the people with cash ready to go and she was excited about the project.
Not to sure what happened with that really.
Anyway let's forget that we have been promised this all before we will be at the Butts!!!
Click to expand...

I just felt it should of been challenged and was an opportunity missed sadly people understandably got carried away



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Reactions: dongonzalos

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 20, 2017
  • #38
Apparently it isn't only monkeys that can be fooled by the same trick twice.
 
Reactions: Bello and italiahorse

singers_pore

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #39
It doesn't matter how many times TF tells lies about his new stadium, there will always be some people who give credence to what he says. I guess some people are just unbelievably dumb.
 
Reactions: Bello, Brylowes, Wheelfass and 1 other person
1

1940oldfive

Active Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #40
AFCCOVENTRY said:
Sandra Garlick would be my pick to lead the group
Click to expand...
you forgot the r in pick
 
1

1940oldfive

Active Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #41
italiahorse said:
So the deal at the Butts will be better?
Can't see how we get CRFC to finance it, then we rent it and .............. we get 365 day incomes.

People need to now ask the right questions.
Click to expand...
suggest we ask the owners of the Butts if they are interested in this grande scheme
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #42
shy_tall_knight said:
I would love the butts to happen but just isn't big enough even for 12,000 - insufficient road network to cope with 12,000 leaving a football stadium at the same time, would be significant pedestrian congestion as everyone spills onto the dual carriageway on Butts Lane. Remember Swan Lane after a game would be all fans walking blocking the road and there were multiple other routes available. Its SISU polka time agin
Click to expand...
This is the big fear. Grand initial plan, very tight space and massive opposition.

What are we going to do as a club if we sign up for something that ends up being way below expectation and quite possibly less than 10,000 capacity.

We would be then consigning the club to the lower leagues for many, many years to come.

I wish there was the space there. I wish the feasibility was there. I wish Wasps would bugger off so that if we did move to the Butts it would very much be a temporary measure and we could return to the Ricoh as owners down the line.

This is all wishful thinking though and I think the Butts plan would be doomed to fail.

Be great if that retirement village wasn't there, but it is. Right smack bang next to the stadium and very literally a stone's throw away and an underarm throw at that.
 
Reactions: Brylowes and martcov

AFCCOVENTRY

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #43
Otis said:
The Butts would be perfect ............ if that retirement village wasn't there.
Click to expand...

It will be ideal for Tudgay...
 
Reactions: Astute and singers_pore

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #44
bradwellskyblues said:
one thing not really picked up on at meeting was Fisher said he has the investment in place for this project would love to know more about that
Click to expand...
He has the investment but CRFC would own the stadium and CCFC would rent it.
Seems he as duped CRFC as well.
Can't see most CCFC fans falling for this.
 
Reactions: Bello

AFCCOVENTRY

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #45
Here's a scenario if the Butts redevelopment happened. I can't see anything happening this year. Loads of planning permission hoops etc to get through.

Say they start next year in 2018 and it takes 2 years complete.

We could be back in the Championship from our L2 bounce (doubt it will happen but in theory).

The new stadium is built based on 10k supporters. By the time it's built and ready we are in the championship. The crowds will go up back to 14-15k.

It doesn't make sense. We would really need to understand what the initial capacity of the Butts would be. At the moment Fisher is saying anything between 7k to 25k.
 
Reactions: martcov

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #46
chiefdave said:
Liberty Stadium and New Den both just over 20K. If they were serious it wouldn't be impossible I don't think.

View attachment 6845

View attachment 6846
Click to expand...

that photo is missing the retirement village and the new flats.
 
Reactions: Astute, Brylowes and martcov

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #47
AFCCOVENTRY said:
Here's a scenario if the Butts redevelopment happened. I can't see anything happening this year. Loads of planning permission hoops etc to get through.

Say they start next year in 2018 and it takes 2 years complete.

We could be back in the Championship from our L2 bounce (doubt it will happen but in theory).

The new stadium is built based on 10k supporters. By the time it's built and ready we are in the championship. The crowds will go up back to 14-15k.

It doesn't make sense. We would really need to understand what the initial capacity of the Butts would be. At the moment Fisher is saying anything between 7k to 25k.
Click to expand...
Complete dreamland thinking. By the time there is agreement we will be a conference club and the current set up at the Butts will be fine
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #48
chiefdave said:
I just think arguing about the exact capacity, the engineering of it, parking, planning, the old boys flats etc is jumping the gun. Don't give Fisher excuses, just tell him its a fantastic idea and get on with it.
Click to expand...
I agree.

If it did turn out to be possible, and if they did do it, it'd be fantastic.

So let's get behind the idea and push them with unstoppable mmentum to show it is possible.

And then having shown it is possible, with the will of the people behind the idea, it'll happen.
 
Reactions: torchomatic and Grendel

Otis

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #49
It's not possible though.

No way the residents there will stand for anything approaching anywhere even close to the capacity we would need to function above League Two.

If Fisher is saying anything between 7,000 and 25,000, I think you very much need to be focusing on the 7,000 end of the scale.
 
Reactions: Astute and Brylowes
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #50
Otis said:
It's not possible though.
Click to expand...
I'm not an architect, so I'll wait for the architect's plans.
 
Reactions: Earlsdon_Skyblue1, torchomatic and Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #51
Otis said:
It's not possible though.

No way the residents there will stand for anything approaching anywhere even close to the capacity we would need to function above League Two.

If Fisher is saying anything between 7,000 and 25,000, I think you very much need to be focusing on the 7,000 end of the scale.
Click to expand...

Residents wouldn't have s choice. Power of objection these days is zero
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #52
I am sure we can all go round in circles about this again but two things need to happen

- Jon Sharpe & Tim Fisher need to detail and show us the plan, confirm the funding, show viability etc. All the other parties, including the fans, need to say "go on then prove it show us". They have been working on this for two and a half years according to Fisher they must have some detail by now
- There has to be some sort of partnership formed with CCC by CRFC&CCFC in order to deal with the infra structure problems of the project both in building and operation. No evidence of that only demands for active support. So how will they do that - mediation? what is to mediate if no plan put forward?

After that we can have a proper discussion of the merits of a move to BPA
 
Reactions: colin101, Astute and Brylowes
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #53
oldskyblue58 said:
All the other parties, including the fans, need to say "go on then prove it show us".
Click to expand...
Of course they do.

We can't dismiss or accept anything without some actual substance!
 
Reactions: torchomatic and Nick

Otis

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #54
Grendel said:
Residents wouldn't have s choice. Power of objection these days is zero
Click to expand...
Is that true? Really? Honest question.
 
T

theferret

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #55
Putting aside all the politics, on a technical level, 25,000 is possible. I was speaking to an architect who is also a city fan, and he said it is feasible, but it would require a walkway adjacent to the railway line to create another access point to Albany Road. The Butts already has planning permission up to 11 or 12K, based on quite modest proposals. Traffic congestion is also a red herring because the vast majority would park in the city centre and therefore access would be dispersed around the ring road. There are plenty of centrally located grounds that can be used as an example. St James Park has only 200 on-site parking spaces.

I don't believe it will happen for lots of reasons. However, lets say a viable, coherent plan is put forward. We would have to decide whether we would back it. Personally, I would, not in support of SISU, but because of the long-term viability of the football club. This goes beyond the financials - and for me is more about club identity and having somewhere to lay our hat and call home (and feel like home). A long term future as Ricoh squatters is a bleak prospect for me. A viable stadium plan that is backed by the fans might also prick the ears of potential investors who might see the Ricoh situation as a massive roadblock. Wishful thinking? Perhaps.

It won't happen, but that will be down to politics and SISUs inability to get anything right more than the technical feasibility imo.
 
Reactions: Astute, Earlsdon_Skyblue1, MusicDating and 3 others
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #56
theferret said:
his goes beyond the financials - and for me is more about club identity and having somewhere to lay our hat and call home (and feel like home).
Click to expand...
Agreed. City centre location helps in identity too.

Completely the opposite to moving onto land at Ansty, say.
 

Gynnsthetonic

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #57
Would love it to happen,
Knock the BP garage and the fob watch down to reroute the road,
Close the road on match days
Free tickets to residents of retirement village
From the main road you can see the pitch is elevated and could be sunk down to create a bigger stadium.
23000 is more than enough for us in the long term, plenty of teams in the prem with similar capacities
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #58
shmmeee said:
I don't see how it can work, but as far as Im concerned Im with chiefdave: if that's the plan let's get on with it.

Didn't listen tonight, is it a joint operation or out of one rental deal playing second fiddle to a rugby club and into another?

Would also question how the pitch would hold up with less investment and more teams playing on it.

If all those issues can be solved though Im right behind it.
Click to expand...

Yep that's how I feel too. Let's just get on with it rather than saying it can't work because.... I know before too long we will be arguing about capacity and that it needa to be X amount. Again, it doesn't matter at the moment.
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #59
theferret said:
Putting aside all the politics, on a technical level, 25,000 is possible. I was speaking to an architect who is also a city fan, and he said it is feasible, but it would require a walkway adjacent to the railway line to create another access point to Albany Road. The Butts already has planning permission up to 11 or 12K, based on quite modest proposals. Traffic congestion is also a red herring because the vast majority would park in the city centre and therefore access would be dispersed around the ring road. There are plenty of centrally located grounds that can be used as an example. St James Park has only 200 on-site parking spaces.

I don't believe it will happen for lots of reasons. However, lets say a viable, coherent plan is put forward. We would have to decide whether we would back it. Personally, I would, not in support of SISU, but because of the long-term viability of the football club. This goes beyond the financials - and for me is more about club identity and having somewhere to lay our hat and call home (and feel like home). A long term future as Ricoh squatters is a bleak prospect for me. A viable stadium plan that is backed by the fans might also prick the ears of potential investors who might see the Ricoh situation as a massive roadblock. Wishful thinking? Perhaps.

It won't happen, but that will be down to politics and SISUs inability to get anything right more than the technical feasibility imo.
Click to expand...
I think with other owners we would be a lot more accommodating in our belief, but this is Sisu and if they were to somehow secure funding and investors I would be a bit concerned as to where the money was coming from.

And again, as has been said, we still wouldn't own our own stadium.
 

eastwoodsdustman

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #60
Won't we need a 45000 capacity minimum now with the new found support?
 
O

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #61
Otis said:
It's not possible though.

No way the residents there will stand for anything approaching anywhere even close to the capacity we would need to function above League Two.

If Fisher is saying anything between 7,000 and 25,000, I think you very much need to be focusing on the 7,000 end of the scale.
Click to expand...

When they bought their properties the search would show the Butts Arena has not just a lease but a Building Agreement attached to it - so it was always intended to be expanded
 
O

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #62
oldskyblue58 said:
I am sure we can all go round in circles about this again but two things need to happen

- Jon Sharpe & Tim Fisher need to detail and show us the plan, confirm the funding, show viability etc. All the other parties, including the fans, need to say "go on then prove it show us". They have been working on this for two and a half years according to Fisher they must have some detail by now
- There has to be some sort of partnership formed with CCC by CRFC&CCFC in order to deal with the infra structure problems of the project both in building and operation. No evidence of that only demands for active support. So how will they do that - mediation? what is to mediate if no plan put forward?

After that we can have a proper discussion of the merits of a move to BPA
Click to expand...

Jon Sharp nor CRL have to show you anything!
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #63
Otis said:
And again, as has been said, we still wouldn't own our own stadium.
Click to expand...

Ah this old chesnut. Having a stadium owned by the current owners or whatever is preferable to not owning one at all and renting from someone who has zero interest in the club. Also there would be something tangible for potential new owners to be attracted by.

Manchester United no longer own Old Trafford. Same for many clubs.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #64
oldfiver said:
When they bought their properties the search would show the Butts Arena has not just a lease but a Building Agreement attached to it - so it was always intended to be expanded
Click to expand...

Similar to those NIMBYs in Stoneleigh and Baginton who buggered up Thomsonfly. The airport was there when they moved in and the stadium was there when they moved into their retirement flats. Get over it I would say.
 

AFCCOVENTRY

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #65
eastwoodsdustman said:
Won't we need a 45000 capacity minimum now with the new found support?
Click to expand...

I wish we built Arena 2000 with the sliding roof.
 
Reactions: pusbccfc
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #66
oldskyblue58 said:
I am sure we can all go round in circles about this again but two things need to happen

- Jon Sharpe & Tim Fisher need to detail and show us the plan, confirm the funding, show viability etc. All the other parties, including the fans, need to say "go on then prove it show us". They have been working on this for two and a half years according to Fisher they must have some detail by now
- There has to be some sort of partnership formed with CCC by CRFC&CCFC in order to deal with the infra structure problems of the project both in building and operation. No evidence of that only demands for active support. So how will they do that - mediation? what is to mediate if no plan put forward?

After that we can have a proper discussion of the merits of a move to BPA
Click to expand...

Exactly after all the false promises of the past even architecture drawings!
For me to even consider it. I am at the stage where I would need to hear someone not from SISU saying they have seen proof of funds and contracts have been signed with builders.
Planning submissions agreed and signed off.
That would be the minimum before I would start to believe.
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #67
theferret said:
Putting aside all the politics, on a technical level, 25,000 is possible. I was speaking to an architect who is also a city fan, and he said it is feasible, but it would require a walkway adjacent to the railway line to create another access point to Albany Road. The Butts already has planning permission up to 11 or 12K, based on quite modest proposals. Traffic congestion is also a red herring because the vast majority would park in the city centre and therefore access would be dispersed around the ring road. There are plenty of centrally located grounds that can be used as an example. St James Park has only 200 on-site parking spaces.

I don't believe it will happen for lots of reasons. However, lets say a viable, coherent plan is put forward. We would have to decide whether we would back it. Personally, I would, not in support of SISU, but because of the long-term viability of the football club. This goes beyond the financials - and for me is more about club identity and having somewhere to lay our hat and call home (and feel like home). A long term future as Ricoh squatters is a bleak prospect for me. A viable stadium plan that is backed by the fans might also prick the ears of potential investors who might see the Ricoh situation as a massive roadblock. Wishful thinking? Perhaps.

It won't happen, but that will be down to politics and SISUs inability to get anything right more than the technical feasibility imo.
Click to expand...

the retirement village goes right upto the railway embankment, I don't know if a literally vertical railway embankment would support the train tracks but it would either be that or get permission to build down the side of the retirement village.
 

Moff

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #68
Otis said:
Is that true? Really? Honest question.
Click to expand...

Residents do have a say but most planning projects these days this has little recourse.
 

olderskyblue

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #69
Deleted member 5849 said:
I'm not an architect, so I'll wait for the architect's plans.
Click to expand...

What?

After doing the Accountants and law courses, you didn't then do the architects course? blimey, you must be one of the poorest qualified people on this forum....
 
Reactions: win9nut, robbiethemole, Astute and 6 others
M

martcov

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 21, 2017
  • #70
Deleted member 5849 said:
I agree.

If it did turn out to be possible, and if they did do it, it'd be fantastic.

So let's get behind the idea and push them with unstoppable mmentum to show it is possible.

And then having shown it is possible, with the will of the people behind the idea, it'll happen.
Click to expand...

What will happen is that CRFC will build/ modify their stadium to fit their future plans. We may or may not be involved. Once again we will be beholden to a Rugby Club. Unless, of course, we buy the head lease of John Sharpe and have any restrictions/ easements removed.

We are a long way from that scenario.
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • …
  • 14
Next
First Prev 2 of 14 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
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?