TIM FISHER's BPA Lies (1 Viewer)

Gosford Green · Dec 18, 2016

CRFC will not enter into a ground share with CCFC currently.

Cov Utd are supposed to be playing there from next season as are Coventry Bears(RL).

It may a possibility in the future but reading between the lines the problem seems to be SISU. Fisher dragging CRFC into the pitch invasion fall out hasn't helped at all.

SkyblueBazza · Dec 18, 2016

Colin Steins Smile said:
Agreed. The target audience for this should be within the financial sector, as its the only thing JS is really interested in. By highlighting the poor performance of her investment and lack of competence

I can't help but think the people investing with the likes of SISU do not possess the morals required. They simply hide their callous disregard for anything but a quick or big buck by investing at arms length via such hedge funds...then if caught out simply deny any knowledge of the investment beyond putting the cash in.

So targeting Joy is a bit like targeting the CEO of a fashion chain for selling us produce where child slave labour has been used in its making. Everyone expresses shock & horror...but most would still buy the produce as it's cheaper for them! Unless you can name the specific purchasers, or in our case investors...it makes very little difference. However, no legal method which brings even a small amount of progress is to be welcomed.

...onwards & upwards PUSB

blueflint · Dec 18, 2016

Nick said:
I asked if he had ruled it out didn't I? Not sure what the heaven's sake, followed by something random was all about.

yes you do nick stop bring diversive

Calista · Dec 19, 2016

chiefdave said:
There's not really a lot to be taken from what he actually said. The only bit of the article that's a quote is:

But the Telegraph gave him the opportunity to confirm what Fisher said, and he could easily have done that. He could have said something along the lines of “It was disappointing to see that pitch invasion”, and I’d have taken that as a hint that Fisher could be right. As it is, Sharp said they didn’t pay any attention to it, so Fisher has just added yet again to his long catalogue of “questionable” statements.

oldskyblue58 · Dec 19, 2016

New article in CT outlines sharps plan for BPA. It doesn't seem to suggest a 15000 stadium will be built any time soon. Mr sharps ambitions seem to be much smaller and rightly focussed on crfc. He says the present stand is big enough for them and development to be focussed on other facilities .

Lease company 51% owned by crfc, I would think he owns the other 49% given his investment

oldskyblue58 · Dec 19, 2016

The other thing you have to question is the non match day joint venture at BPA that fisher mentioned on radio and at scg. Tie that in with what John Sharp said and the down time whilst facilities developed and it surely must amount to very little any time soon. If it happens at all.

So moving on, what and where is this site fisher spent two days negotiating on last week....... ?

Nick · Dec 19, 2016

blueflint said:
yes you do nick stop bring diversive

Yes I do what? What's divisive about me asking if he had ruled it out?

Captain Dart · Dec 19, 2016

oldskyblue58 said:
The other thing you have to question is the non match day joint venture at BPA that fisher mentioned on radio and at scg. Tie that in with what John Sharp said and the down time whilst facilities developed and it surely must amount to very little any time soon. If it happens at all.

So moving on, what and where is this site fisher spent two days negotiating on last week....... ?

How about we ask that he shows proof to a solicitor who is sworn not to disclose any details merely to confirm that activity commensurate with genuine intent to acquire land for stadium development has gone on, e.g. sight of meeting minutes, architects plans etc. If he says no it is another reason to doubt him.

Grendel · Dec 19, 2016

oldskyblue58 said:
So moving on, what and where is this site fisher spent two days negotiating on last week....... ?

In his own mind I would think

olderskyblue · Dec 19, 2016

It's Woodlands school, and he happened to drive by it....

Deleted member 5849 · Dec 19, 2016

Captain Dart said:
How about we ask that he shows proof to a solicitor who is sworn not to disclose any details merely to confirm that activity commensurate with genuine intent to acquire land for stadium development has gone on, e.g. sight of meeting minutes, architects plans etc. If he says no it is another reason to doubt him.

Sandra Garlick?

ecky · Dec 19, 2016

SkyblueBazza said:
I can't help but think the people investing with the likes of SISU do not possess the morals required. They simply hide their callous disregard for anything but a quick or big buck by investing at arms length via such hedge funds...then if caught out simply deny any knowledge of the investment beyond putting the cash in.

So targeting Joy is a bit like targeting the CEO of a fashion chain for selling us produce where child slave labour has been used in its making. Everyone expresses shock & horror...but most would still buy the produce as it's cheaper for them! Unless you can name the specific purchasers, or in our case investors...it makes very little difference. However, no legal method which brings even a small amount of progress is to be welcomed.

...onwards & upwards PUSB

Do we know who the investors are?
Is there a way to find out?

Otis · Dec 19, 2016

oldskyblue58 said:
New article in CT outlines sharps plan for BPA. It doesn't seem to suggest a 15000 stadium will be built any time soon. Mr sharps ambitions seem to be much smaller and rightly focussed on crfc. He says the present stand is big enough for them and development to be focussed on other facilities .

Lease company 51% owned by crfc, I would think he owns the other 49% given his investment

That can't be right, OSB. That doesn't tie in with what Fisher is saying.

Why on earth would he say such things unless completely true?

I am shocked. And saddened. Saddened and shocked.

Shocking.

And saddening.

Captain Dart · Dec 19, 2016

Nick said:
I asked if he had ruled it out didn't I? Not sure what the heaven's sake, followed by something random was all about.

My comments were not random they clearly presented my point of view.
Anyway let us clear your question up, below is what JS is quoted as saying today.

What is planned for the site?

Mr Sharp said: “We are putting together a working party that will contain people with various skill sets such as architectural and planning capability.”

He added: “We don’t need a much bigger stand than what we have at the moment.

“What we need is better sporting facilities, a bigger bar space and more hospitality.
We had more than 350 people sat down for lunch on Saturday.

“We need a lot more space to serve people and give them a better experience.

“I would like to put a gym in there and improve facilities for the players.

“We would also like an artificial pitch in there - but they are very expensive.

“That would allow all sorts of things to go on in the stadium such as football, athletics and so on.
We already have an agreement with Coventry United and Coventry United Ladies.”

I think it is clear that CCFC is not and never was in any likely plan at least not for league matches.
I've no doubt CCFC spoke about using CRC hospitality facilities but that is probably as far as it went.

Can I ask you a question, do you believe CCFC is not being asset stripped?

Nick · Dec 19, 2016

There is only 1 actual asset isn't there which hasn't been stripped yet?

It would be interesting if Sharpe came out and said straight off there is not going to be a ground share with CCFC.

Otis · Dec 19, 2016

Nick said:
There is only 1 actual asset isn't there which hasn't been stripped yet?

It would be interesting if Sharpe came out and said straight off there is not going to be a ground share with CCFC.

Joy Seppala?

blueflint · Dec 19, 2016

Nick said:
Yes I do what? What's divisive about me asking if he had ruled it out?

you know what was meant in the post and you always take the opposite stance to the majority
is it just to create debate?

Nick · Dec 19, 2016

blueflint said:
you know what was meant in the post and you always take the opposite stance to the majority
is it just to create debate?

Sorry, so I should agree with you because you shout majority?

He said it had been ruled out, I asked about it. Hardly divisive is it.

Captain Dart · Dec 19, 2016

Nick said:
There is only 1 actual asset isn't there which hasn't been stripped yet?

It would be interesting if Sharpe came out and said straight off there is not going to be a ground share with CCFC.

Can't you read, he has. There is no other interpretation, if the current stand is big enough then it can't be used for an EFL club as the capacity has to be 5000 and the Butts only holds 3000.

Nick · Dec 19, 2016

Captain Dart said:
Can't you read, he has. There is no other interpretation, if the current stand is big enough then it can't be used for an EFL club as the capacity has to be 5000 and the Butts only holds 3000.

Has he said straight out?

(I am not saying I believe there is until he says it, but he hasn't out and out confirmed it is never happening has he?)

Colin Steins Smile · Dec 19, 2016

ecky said:
Do we know who the investors are?
Is there a way to find out?

By highlighting the incompetence and poor performance of SISU with their handling of CCFC, we potentially affect any investors considering channelling funds via SISU. That has the potential to damage SISU

skybluetony176 · Dec 19, 2016

Nick said:
There is only 1 actual asset isn't there which hasn't been stripped yet?

It would be interesting if Sharpe came out and said straight off there is not going to be a ground share with CCFC.

If there's an athletics track going in or at the very least allowance for one at a later date presumably that is going to go around the pitch and leave even less room for a 15k capacity stadium with potential to rise to 20+k? Do you really need him to come out and dumb it down to the lowest level before you realise that he has no interest in a ground share with CCFC? Given our owners litigious nature would you blame him for not publicly stating it outright? I think he's set his stall out pretty clearly and it doesn't include CCFC. That's all before you even consider that announcement in three weeks SISU would have to be involved in developing the site.

bawtryneal · Dec 19, 2016

blueflint said:
you know what was meant in the post and you always take the opposite stance to the majority
is it just to create debate?

More clicks, more money.

Nick · Dec 19, 2016

bawtryneal said:
More clicks, more money.

If it was about clicks, I'd be pushing the majority stuff as much as I could.

I wouldn't be asking if he had confirmed it isn't happening to generate clicks, I'd be clickbaiting the crap out of everything on social media to drive people here.

Nick · Dec 19, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
If there's an athletics track going in or at the very least allowance for one at a later date presumably that is going to go around the pitch and leave even less room for a 15k capacity stadium with potential to rise to 20+k? Do you really need him to come out and dumb it down to the lowest level before you realise that he has no interest in a ground share with CCFC? Given our owners litigious nature would you blame him for not publicly stating it outright? I think he's set his stall out pretty clearly and it doesn't include CCFC. That's all before you even consider that announcement in three weeks SISU would have to be involved in developing the site.

Yes, we have had the discussions about whether it's even possible at all etc etc.

My point was that in an article about Coventry Rugby plans, you would think there would be "Are there any plans at all for a CCFC ground share?" Yes / No / Inbetween.

skybluetony176 · Dec 19, 2016

Nick said:
Yes, we have had the discussions about whether it's even possible at all etc etc.

My point was that in an article about Coventry Rugby plans, you would think there would be "Are there any plans at all for a CCFC ground share?" Yes / No / Inbetween.

I can't decide whether you are stupid or ignorant.

Grendel · Dec 19, 2016

Captain Dart said:
Can't you read, he has. There is no other interpretation, if the current stand is big enough then it can't be used for an EFL club as the capacity has to be 5000 and the Butts only holds 3000.

Oh well another piece of bad news for the club. No doubt gave you a hard on for the whole day.

Nick · Dec 19, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
I can't decide whether you are stupid or ignorant.

Stupid or ignorant for saying about it being a yes or no question put to him?

Surely that question would have come up when discussing the plans for the Butts?

(It may well have).

skybluetony176 · Dec 19, 2016

Grendel said:
Oh well another piece of bad news for the club. No doubt gave you a hard on for the whole day.

How's something that was never going to happen being confirmed as never going to happen bad news? It isn't even news.

skybluetony176 · Dec 19, 2016

Nick said:
Stupid or ignorant for saying about it being a yes or no question put to him?

Surely that question would have come up when discussing the plans for the Butts?

(It may well have).

FFS it's no. Do you really need that in print in bold text, capitals and underlined before you except it?

Grendel · Dec 19, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
FFS it's no. Do you really need that in print in bold text, capitals and underlined before you except it?

I think the word is accept Tony.

skybluetony176 · Dec 19, 2016

Grendel said:
I think the word is accept Tony.

Well done you've won the internet for picking out a spelling mistake. Clearly the point doesn't stand anymore.

Grendel · Dec 19, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Well done you've won the internet for picking out a spelling mistake. Clearly the point doesn't stand anymore.

A fairly stupid mistake. Or was it just ignorance Tony? What next a link to the biggest cities in England when they were actually boroughs?

Nick · Dec 19, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
FFS it's no. Do you really need that in print in bold text, capitals and underlined before you except it?

No, as we have said over and over that the discussions have always been what if's and could etc rather than whens.

Surely it would have been easy enough when discussing plans for the Butts for CRFC to say "Do CCFC feature in those plans at all anywhere?" or something.

Otis · Dec 19, 2016

Think the only good news here is that maybe it will help Cov try and compete on a more even level with Wasps.

If it is to be the city of rugby then we should all be rooting for Cov to be at the forefront.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

TIM FISHER's BPA Lies (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

CCFC Finance Director

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency