SimonGilbert
Telegraph Tea Boy
I spoke with Tim Fisher about this piece 15mins before the "plan" was published. I didn't know it existed until Tim told me at the end of our conversation that it would be going up. Coincidence in this instance.
Have you guys deliberately waited half an hour to publish this piece following CCFC's Five point Plan Article Simon?
No don't try to put words in my mouth, what I'm saying is that due to 'commercial sensitivity' they wouldn't receive a comment one way or the other. They're not obliged to, it all depends on how the question they asked was phrased!
I approached him.
Many were asking what the council's stance was now ACL had been sold and whether Wasps would help to develop land around the Ricoh.
As the man responsible for the city's "Local Plan" he was the obvious candidate to speak with.
He addressed both issues, but whether you are convinced by what he had to say on either issue is a different matter. But at least you have some response to scrutinise and judge for yourselves now.
However, the reality is, any "land deal" seems extremely unlikely to be within the city boundary anyway.
The FA are unlikely to ever comment on what they perceive to be an issue for the Football League.
The club has a deal in place which allows them to play in Coventry for the next four years. I'm sure the FL will see this as the ideal response to any stadium questions - at least until a preferred site is officially unveiled.
It's not within the 'City' boundary (see recent post from Stadium Chair, Sandra Garlick).
So your saying that the Telegragh has not made the FOI requests and are now lying to its readers?
They have to give an answer by law I believe. Even if that answer is no comment due to commercial sensitivity or even confidentiality.
But none did. They all gave a flat no. They can't say no if the answer is yes.
Granted - it's pretty similar, but there are a couple more organisations on the list now our FOIs have been included - Environment Agency and Dept for Culture, Media and Sport.
We have been submitting regular FOIs, and I believe the Trust have adopted a similar strategy. We ran a similar story last year.
About time for an update - and not everyone reads SBT. They should, but they don't.
We received extremely clear responses to all of the requests. There was no withholding information due to "commercial sensitivity". All organisations categorically denied talks with anyone over construction of a large sports stadium.
Quite different to withholding information.
Oh yes they can, it depends on how the question is asked & phrased. Related to a former Council Chair who made me aware of what goes on and how they handle it and get round it!
The Wasps deal was being discussed for 6 to 12 months before it actually happened & no leaks on that one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Simon
Please get someone legal to clarify what can and cannot be disclosed under FOI
All the information I have says anything commercially sensitive cannot be disclosed
Oh yes they can, it depends on how the question is asked & phrased. Related to a former Council Chair who made me aware of what goes on and how they handle it and get round it!
The Wasps deal was being discussed for 6 to 12 months before it actually happened & no leaks on that one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Simon
Please get someone legal to clarify what can and cannot be disclosed under FOI
All the information I have says anything commercially sensitive cannot be disclosed
Commercially sensitive information does not have to be disclosed - but the organisation would have to state that it was refusing to disclose the information for that reason.
That did not happen in the responses we received. All organisations categorically dismissed taking part in any correspondence or meetings over the construction of a large sports stadium.
Furthermore, the phrasing of our FOIs sought to eliminate the issue of commercial confidentiality by speaking in general terms about the construction of a large sports stadium - with no reference to any parties involved.
For reference - here is the phrasing of the question we sent to the local authorities:
"1) Please could you confirm if the council has engaged in conversations or correspondence with any individual / organisation about any proposed new large sporting stadia with spectator seating within the council boundary area over the past 12 months?
"2) Has the council received any indication that an application for new large sporting stadia with spectator seating is expected in the future?
"3) If so - can you please identify the specific location(s) discussed as a possible site for the construction of potential new large sporting stadia with spectator seating in the past 12 months. If the exact location cannot be named, could you please identify the rough geographical area within the council boundary."
But if they cannot comment for commercial reasons but the answer is "yes" - how are they supposed to reply?
They cannot say "no comment" because that leads to speculation why they did not say "no"
You didn't ask about a small sports stadium:facepalm:
Oh yes they can, it depends on how the question is asked & phrased. Related to a former Council Chair who made me aware of what goes on and how they handle it and get round it!
The Wasps deal was being discussed for 6 to 12 months before it actually happened & no leaks on that one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Haha. Warwick DC did ask for guidance on size - but that was only because of the plans for a new home for Leamington FC.
Nice to hear a council is helping out its local football club though, isn't it?
Nice to hear a council is helping out its local football club though, isn't it?
Even nicer to hear that no non local councils are not helping CCFC become non local though.
Yes, but I do believe the council has an opportunity to benefit from Leamington FC moving. They want to convert the club's existing home into a traveller site.
Nice to hear a council is helping out its local football club though, isn't it?
Is this a thread about land deals or about councils assisting commercial entities? Whilst we are here though....Did Leamington put forward a sustainable business plan? Maton seems to say that CCFC didn't.
Agree on that. Although I live over that way it wouldn't be right for CCFC to be over here.
Haven't got a clue. Don't support Leamington.
Well, why are you mentioning them on a thread about FOIs regarding land deals for CCFC? FFS. Talk about blind hatred of an official body.....
Simon did...Well, why are you mentioning them on a thread about FOIs regarding land deals for CCFC? FFS. Talk about blind hatred of an official body.....
Well, why are you mentioning them on a thread about FOIs regarding land deals for CCFC? FFS. Talk about blind hatred of an official body.....
I feel the same about Rugby as does everyone I know here(that's right,I have friends) CCFC fans or not.
I was reading a bit on Wiki about them today .
Have a Stadium covered on 4 sides with capacity for 5.5K and around 2 K seats IIRC.
Just saying .
Brought back fond memories of an old mate Ian Crawley ,sadly gone but forever In the record books scoring @ Wembley In the FA Vase back In the eighties and winning It of course .
Blind Hatred, the council fucked the club royally and are no means not accountable for what has gone on with regards to the sorry mess we find ourselves in.
No he isn't but someone is on behalf of the owners, common knowledge as to who that is.
We received extremely clear responses to all of the requests. There was no withholding information due to "commercial sensitivity". All organisations categorically denied talks with anyone over construction of a large sports stadium.
Quite different to withholding information.
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?