Warwick Uni (land near) (2 Viewers)

Sub · Aug 13, 2013

The Telegraph tackled Mr Fisher on widespread fans’ disbelief that he or the club’s owners Otium/Sisu had any genuine intent to return to the Coventry area.

It came after national reports that Football League chairman Greg Clarke had admitted he “does not know” whether a new ground would actually be built, despite Otium lodging a £1million bond (an “I owe you”) with the League as a penalty if the stadium is not built.

Mr Fisher said: “If we say we’re going to build a stadium, then we will. We have provided clear evidence to the League on our ability to deliver on those plans. It’s not, and never will be, our intention to mislead, filibuster or posture.

so how can clarke say he does not know and then fisher can say we have proven to the league we are going to build a stadium??? which one is lying?? or is it both of them ???:thinking about:

something stinks in this whole mess and looks like all sides have been bullshitting the fans

Manchester_sky_blue · Aug 13, 2013

James Smith said:
I fail to see why SISU should be given or sold the freehold to a City asset.

They dont need the freehold, just 100% ownership of ACL so that they can access all the revenues generated. I imagine they would be quite happy for the council to keep the freehold provided it was on a suitably long lease, say 50 years minimum.

Whilst it may stick in the throat to see SISU get hold of the Ricoh on the cheap, it would likely be the fastest way to get rid of them. Once upon a time they may have wanted to stick around the develop the stadium but now with the level of anti-sisu feeling i think they would sell club and stadium on in short order.

CCFC PimpRail · Aug 13, 2013

Sisued said:
what a wonderfully racist post.

Really....? Which bit exactly.....?

James Smith · Aug 13, 2013

Manchester_sky_blue said:
They dont need the freehold, just 100% ownership of ACL so that they can access all the revenues generated. I imagine they would be quite happy for the council to keep the freehold provided it was on a suitably long lease, say 50 years minimum.

Whilst it may stick in the throat to see SISU get hold of the Ricoh on the cheap, it would likely be the fastest way to get rid of them. Once upon a time they may have wanted to stick around the develop the stadium but now with the level of anti-sisu feeling i think they would sell club and stadium on in short order.

Well I would agree with you except for the Ann Lucas comments about protecting a City asset (or whatever the exact quote was) and the ACL statement which makes me think that SISU want the Ricoh and won't bring the club back until they get it. 5 years is a long time.

SkyblueBazza · Aug 13, 2013

Sky said:
What a pointless argument? I live in Coventry. The Ricoh is less than a mile within the boundary, Warwick uni is less than a mile outside the boundary. A boundary is a imaginary line which could change at any time. If you would give up on CCFC because of the 0.5 miles which separates Coventry from Warwick uni then you should rethink your priorities as a fan.

I think it might be closer to the city centre than the Ricoh too.
People need to make their minds up what they want...or at least ask themselves if they are being as disingenuous as they accuse TF et al of being. Do they want Coventry back in Coventry...or is the real agenda "SISU-out" at all costs? It's a dilemma I know, but it's the kind of dilemma that clouds the issues...& hence actions, & confuses people where they should/want to direct their energies.

lordsummerisle · Aug 13, 2013

James Smith said:
Well I would agree with you except for the Ann Lucas comments about protecting a City asset (or whatever the exact quote was) and the ACL statement which makes me think that SISU want the Ricoh and won't bring the club back until they get it. 5 years is a long time.

Wasn't it something about keeping her husband off the sofa or something?

James Smith · Aug 13, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
Wasn't it something about keeping her husband off the sofa or something?

The exact quote was:

I will protect the asset of the Ricoh Arena for the city and its people.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-council-leader-sisu-5382321

chiefdave · Aug 13, 2013

SkyblueBazza said:
I think it might be closer to the city centre than the Ricoh too.
People need to make their minds up what they want...or at least ask themselves if they are being as disingenuous as they accuse TF et al of being. Do they want Coventry back in Coventry...or is the real agenda "SISU-out" at all costs? It's a dilemma I know, but it's the kind of dilemma that clouds the issues...& hence actions, & confuses people where they should/want to direct their energies.

If Fisher held a fans forum and showed a business plan that stood up to scrutiny and showed us being much better off with the new stadium (and owning it). And had purchased the land and told us where it would be and shown us the plans and it seemed possible to get planning permission then that would be a totally different situation to what we have now and people would be able to make their minds up as to if they wished to support the plan or not.

You could build a new stadium outside of Cov and be a 2 min walk from the Ricoh so in reality the boundary is not a huge issue but the fact is there is nothing to suggest we would actually be any better off, have the funding to build it, have a site or any plans. I might as well go on CWR myself and announce my plans for a huge new state of the art stadium, there's about as much chance of me buiilding one as their is of the Fisher Arena actually happening.

lordsummerisle · Aug 13, 2013

James Smith said:
The exact quote was:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-council-leader-sisu-5382321

There was definitely a husband and sofa involved somewhere.

fernandopartridge · Aug 13, 2013

James Smith said:
Well I would agree with you except for the Ann Lucas comments about protecting a City asset (or whatever the exact quote was) and the ACL statement which makes me think that SISU want the Ricoh and won't bring the club back until they get it. 5 years is a long time.

How is the Ricoh an asset to the people of Coventry? Please explain.

fernandopartridge · Aug 13, 2013

James Smith said:
The exact quote was:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-council-leader-sisu-5382321

How do the people of Coventry benefit from this asset?

Manchester_sky_blue · Aug 13, 2013

SkyblueBazza said:
I think it might be closer to the city centre than the Ricoh too.
People need to make their minds up what they want...or at least ask themselves if they are being as disingenuous as they accuse TF et al of being. Do they want Coventry back in Coventry...or is the real agenda "SISU-out" at all costs? It's a dilemma I know, but it's the kind of dilemma that clouds the issues...& hence actions, & confuses people where they should/want to direct their energies.

I think the real issue is that we have come to think of the Ricoh as home and it makes no sense to anyone to build a new ground whilst the ricoh lies empty.

RPHunt · Aug 13, 2013

fernandopartridge said:
How is the Ricoh an asset to the people of Coventry? Please explain.

It's about as much of an asset as the Motor Museum, the Herbert Art Gallery or the Belgrade. Maybe you think it would be a good idea to hand them over to SISU as well?

lordsummerisle · Aug 13, 2013

RPHunt said:
It's about as much of an asset as the Motor Museum, the Herbert Art Gallery or the Belgrade. Maybe you think it would be a good idea to hand them over to SISU as well?

None of which are owned by a local council.

chiefdave · Aug 13, 2013

fernandopartridge said:
How is the Ricoh an asset to the people of Coventry? Please explain.

I assume they don't mean asset in terms of everyone living in Cov gets given a tenner every year out of the profits. They mean assets as in it generates jobs, brings people into the city therefore causing more money to be spent in the city. How many shows with the likes of Bon Jovi, Take That, Muse etc were there in Coventry before the Ricoh was built?

Nick · Aug 13, 2013

I don't see the Ricoh as a community asset at all, I was thinking the other day what is there other than football that would get the youngsters to the Ricoh...There isn't anything at all.

Why would I go to the Ricoh without football? maybe for the casino every couple of months but I probably wouldn't bother...

fernandopartridge · Aug 13, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
None of which are owned by a local council.

.....two of which are free to access, unlike......

RPHunt · Aug 13, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
None of which are owned by a local council.

Neither is the Ricoh.

covcity4life · Aug 13, 2013

im banned from casino for nothing so screw them!

fernandopartridge · Aug 13, 2013

chiefdave said:
I assume they don't mean asset in terms of everyone living in Cov gets given a tenner every year out of the profits. They mean assets as in it generates jobs, brings people into the city therefore causing more money to be spent in the city. How many shows with the likes of Bon Jovi, Take That, Muse etc were there in Coventry before the Ricoh was built?

Not an asset in the true sense of the word then. By your rationale then, the Casbah / Colosseum / Tic Toc is an asset to the people of Coventry?

Deleted member 5849 · Aug 13, 2013

Isn't it worrying a football stadium used for football is redefined as a community asset full stop?

How did it ever come to that, that a football ground is more important for a wider community than for a football team?

Not sure I like this brave new world where a football ground's spoken of in terms of multi-use venues, revenue streams and development opportunities (none of which sound particularly community first, cold hearted profit second, anyway).

Difference between considering ACL/the council should get a 'fair' price for it, and not lose out when selling it, and deciding it should hang onto it for wider reasons than it being a football ground, IMO.

Nick · Aug 13, 2013

IF the Ricoh didn't have football then surely jobs would be lost anyway as the people in the food outlets would only be needed for concerts and maybe functions?

James Smith · Aug 13, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
None of which are owned by a local council.

Wasn't the Herbert bailed out by the Higgs as well?

lordsummerisle · Aug 13, 2013

RPHunt said:
Neither is the Ricoh.

Really?

lordsummerisle · Aug 13, 2013

covcity4life said:
im banned from casino for nothing so screw them!

I'm banned from the casino by my missus.

For coming home with nothing!

James Smith · Aug 13, 2013

Nick said:
I don't see the Ricoh as a community asset at all, I was thinking the other day what is there other than football that would get the youngsters to the Ricoh...There isn't anything at all.

Why would I go to the Ricoh without football? maybe for the casino every couple of months but I probably wouldn't bother...

Jehovas Witness conference?

shmmeee · Aug 13, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
Isn't it worrying a football stadium used for football is redefined as a community asset full stop?

How did it ever come to that, that a football ground is more important for a wider community than for a football team?

Not sure I like this brave new world where a football ground's spoken of in terms of multi-use venues, revenue streams and development opportunities (none of which sound particularly community first, cold hearted profit second, anyway).

Difference between considering ACL/the council should get a 'fair' price for it, and not lose out when selling it, and deciding it should hang onto it for wider reasons than it being a football ground, IMO.

That's definitely been a change of tack with Lucas coming in.

Though I think the football club is also a community asset, so who am I to talk?

Deleted member 5849 · Aug 13, 2013

shmmeee said:
That's definitely been a change of tack with Lucas coming in.

Well... it seems just furthering the following, back at the time when SISU were set to take over.

Cllr Taylor set out four tests which potential buyers would have to pass before the arena was sold.

First, investors wanting to buy the Sky Blues and the arena would have to show their deal was agreed by both the football club and its bank, the Co-operative Bank.

Secondly, they'd have to promise to use the Ricoh Arena to regenerate the north of Coventry.

Thirdly, the new investor would have to bring extra management expertise and strength to running both the club and the venue.

Lastly, they'd have to show they'd enough money to do a deal which didn't short-change the joint owners of the Ricoh Arena.

One and four seem fair enough. Three is... logical I suppose (although one man's expertise is another's incompetence).

Two however seems very, very odd to me!

If the price is 'fair' and whatever the value of a ground is (how to quantify that is another matter!) I see no reason why a football club should be expected to do more beyond football, in order to own its football stadium.

See, football club can be a community asset by virtue of being a football club, not by being a property development company.

James Smith · Aug 13, 2013

James Smith said:
Wasn't the Herbert bailed out by the Higgs as well?

Yeah the Higgs helped the Herbert Art Gallery out.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/3m-loan-secures-future-herbert-3134989

RPHunt · Aug 13, 2013

James Smith said:
Yeah the Higgs helped the Herbert Art Gallery out.

Wait for the bleating:

"They've been lining their pockets ever since"

"They keep all the pie money to themselves"

"It was Joe Elliot's fault they needed a bailout"

lordsummerisle · Aug 13, 2013

RPHunt said:
Wait for the bleating:

"They've been lining their pockets ever since"

"They keep all the pie money to themselves"

"It was Joe Elliot's fault they needed a bailout"

Wait for the:

"There wouldn't be a Herbert Art Gallery if it wasn't for them".

"If they don't like it, we'll get the Tate Gallery in from London to replace them"

"Joe Elliott saved them".

Nick · Aug 13, 2013

Herbert isn't the best anyway, paid a fair whack for a dinosaur expo which turned out to be in a room the size of my living room with about 5 model dinosaurs. Literally walked through in about 6 minutes and was about £30 down.

RPHunt · Aug 13, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
Wait for the:

"There wouldn't be a Herbert Art Gallery if it wasn't for them".

"If they don't like it, we'll get the Tate Gallery in from London to replace them"

"Joe Elliott saved them".

Baaah

chiefdave · Aug 13, 2013

fernandopartridge said:
Not an asset in the true sense of the word then. By your rationale then, the Casbah / Colosseum / Tic Toc is an asset to the people of Coventry?

I certainly would. And that's the reason why when historic music venues look like they're going to be closed down you have people protesting. Went onto The Place Station (the site for right to bid on community assets) and the first example of a community asset that came up was Old Trafford!

Cut some of it out as it goes on a bit but this is a definition of community asset:

What is a community asset?

Which land and buildings do you really care about? Do any of them play a vital role or provide an integral public service in the heart of your community? Do you know of land or buildings on your street that has the potential to deliver social well-being within the area?
Community assets, in the broadest sense, are buildings and pieces of land that are an essential part of the social fabric of the area. Where they are in existing use, they are assets that if lost to community use, would significantly affect that community’s well-being. Where a building and piece of land has already fallen into disuse, their bringing back into community use would fulfil a real need in that community. Many buildings that have fallen into disuse, or at risk of falling into disuse, are heritage buildings. However, this is not just about preserving historical bricks and mortar for its own sake, but rather securing an asset for the community to use into the future.
The use of the land or building currently, or in the recent past, furthers the social well-being or cultural, recreational or sporting interests of the local community.
This use (as described above) of the building will continue to further the social well-being or interests of the local community.
The use of the building or land must not be deemed ‘ancillary’, i.e. of secondary purpose. This means that the use of the land or building to further social well-being or interests of the community must be its principle use.

Nick · Aug 13, 2013

Why does the Ricoh provide an integral public service though?

Warwick Uni (land near) (2 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

New Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency