Nick
Administrator
It isn't a commitment saying what they can offer is it? The commitment is when contracts are signed
It isn't a commitment saying what they can offer is it? The commitment is when contracts are signedThe pre read material is surely CA's email? Does he seriously expect commitments before they've sat down and discussed the finer detail?
Yes it is very surprising and given Wasps duplicity and PR I would insist on it
It isn't a commitment saying what they can offer is it? The commitment is when contracts are signed
Before the wasps stuff came out, weren't csf saying "our door is open" in the telegraph but had given the club "notice"?
It's not a commitment to say we would move in, but if he thinks they can't offer anything they are doing it to try and spin things like they did with the ricoh talks and "legal noise".Then CA insisting on it before meeting is pointless. It means nothing according to you so why wouldn't he attend the meeting?
I was talking before the wasps stuff came out.They had a pre arranged meeting. I would say that their door is open. It's CA who isn't willing to go through it at this point in time.
Bottom line is it is totally unprofessional to not turn up to a meeting, especially one such as this when it is a meeting between parties that is very relevant and holds great importance to the future of the club you represent.They had a pre arranged meeting. I would say that their door is open. It's CA who isn't willing to go through it at this point in time.
Bottom line is it is totally unprofessional to not turn up to a meeting, especially one such as this when it is a meeting between parties that is very relevant and holds great importance to the future of the club you represent.
Providing it met the conditions laid outYou've changed your tune. You were only saying last week that he should have attended.
Bottom line is it is totally unprofessional to not turn up to a meeting, especially one such as this when it is a meeting between parties that is very relevant and holds great importance to the future of the club you represent.
As pointed out by @armybike in my twitter discussion with Les Reid, even he thinks it could end up in court. The unfortunate thing is there is no planning reason for the application to be rejected. Lots of emotional reasons, yes but in terms of planning law alone, no. Les suggested that material economic reasons and the wider public interest could be used by the Cllrs to stop or at least form the basis for a court challenge.
Sad thing is, in economic terms, one party has offered to invest £7m, the other party, £0. I don't like it, but the best deal for the city of Coventry is the Wasps one. It's shafting CCFC but in my opinion, they've brought it on themselves.
There probably is room for all parties to co-exist and sitting down to throw around a few ideas about how it might work should be the sensible first step in moving towards something formal. Having responded to many competitive tenders in my professional career, if the first interaction you have with the party tendering is the formal notice to respond, you've got precious little chance of getting the outcome that you want. IMO, Wasps are getting what they want because they're prepared to do the ground work prior to the formal stages of anything. A meeting here, a lunch there and a discussion off the record over a couple of pints is the way relationships in business are built. SISU and the CCFC board appear to have not grasped this in any stage of their dealings with the City of Coventry and the parties in play here. "We batter people in court" is not the way to build trust.
This sad state of affairs, which I'm far from happy about, has at its heart a corporation who have buggered it up. Even Joy admitted they wouldn't do it again.
That's what worries me. There has to be a reason they are refusing to reply to Anderson. Paul Breed from CSF confirmed on 1st June he had received the correspondence from Anderson. 8 weeks on and they still haven't replied.There is also a reason they won't put it in writing also isn't there?
Personally I think he should have gone but if I try and look at it from his viewpoint I can see why he didn't. He was in talks with CSF, those talks stopped and then days later it turned out they had been doing a deal with Wasps. He then asked for details of what facilities would be available to the club and CSF have, to date, refused to answer.There's no reason for not attending a meeting in person though.
They were looking for someone else to pay the £7m weren't they?Have Wasps confirmed they are investing £7 million?
Pretty much, it's to stop any negativity towards them. Look how well it has worked on here....That's what worries me. There has to be a reason they are refusing to reply to Anderson. Paul Breed from CSF confirmed on 1st June he had received the correspondence from Anderson. 8 weeks on and they still haven't replied.
Personally I think he should have gone but if I try and look at it from his viewpoint I can see why he didn't. He was in talks with CSF, those talks stopped and then days later it turned out they had been doing a deal with Wasps. He then asked for details of what facilities would be available to the club and CSF have, to date, refused to answer.
A meeting could very well help, equally it could be used to spin things.
Given that CSF and Wasps both stated in the CT that they didn't think the academy would be able to stay once Wasps plans were completed and that they only agreed to meet once that was met with negativity and talk of protests I can see it being a concern that its a PR exercise to get the Trust and others onside.
They were looking for someone else to pay the £7m weren't they?
Knowing you Grendel, you're trying to pick holes in what I said.Have Wasps confirmed they are investing £7 million?
Knowing you Grendel, you're trying to pick holes in what I said.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/new-wasps-rfc-training-centre-10380071
Armstrong:“That’s probably going to be a £7m investment. We are looking at ways of financing that through sponsorship.” So, before you say "it's not Wasps then it's sponsorship", I don't care and it's not the point as you damn well know.
It's so easy, " sisus fault".The problem is people on here have frequently said the only reason talks have broken down are due to legal action pending which needs to be dropped. This came from one statement from a Wasps employee at the meeting. Anderson said at the meeting the same representative said it was not an issue
Many on here take as gospel what the Wasps representative said so they will again. Which means there probably is no offer at all and never will be but it can easily be claimed so after the event
I don't know, I don't care and I don't know why it's relevant. The article I just linked you to does say they have a £12.3m cash balance, but I really don't care past that.So if they don't finance it through sponsorship - who pays?
I don't know, I don't care and I don't know why it's relevant. The article I just linked you to does say they have a £12.3m cash balance, but I really don't care past that.
Not if it is just a PR sideshow to say "hey we tried but they did not want to play ball"
I think that's unlikely, but given your bias, I'm sure it's the first and only thing that came to mind for you.So if the Council say incorporated it into their overall development project that would mean they haven't spent anything more than CCFC doesn't it?
One thing that to some degree surprises me is the lack of legal action over something that is apparently so vital. That is the usual recourse of the CCFC owners. Perhaps it is just a matter of time?. Perhaps that is the reason no one is talking?. Not sure who or on what grounds SISU or CCFC could sue mind? Not sure there is any legal obligation to offer CCFC a new deal on the cessation of the old user agreement. So long as CSF provide facilities of adequate standard until June 2017 they have not I would guess broken the contract
Which longer deal? Have csf said they would have committed to ccfc long term?Which shows the folly of CCFC not committing to a longer term deal.
They got taken to the cleaners again.
This is repeated serial failure to care for the club.
SISU are not suitable guardians of the club.
Not recently, when they moved back after being told to by the FA.Which longer deal? Have csf said they would have committed to ccfc long term?
Looks like the article linked in this thread could be the Preamble.One thing that to some degree surprises me is the lack of legal action over something that is apparently so vital. That is the usual recourse of the CCFC owners. Perhaps it is just a matter of time?. Perhaps that is the reason no one is talking?. Not sure who or on what grounds SISU or CCFC could sue mind? Not sure there is any legal obligation to offer CCFC a new deal on the cessation of the old user agreement. So long as CSF provide facilities of adequate standard until June 2017 they have not I would guess broken the contract
Finally. The club have stepped up and lodged a formal planning objection. http://www.ccfc.co.uk/documents/reference-number144-3213645.pdf
Of someone else's money... Not theirs.Have Wasps confirmed they are investing £7 million?
Of someone else's money... Not theirs.
The myth that Wasps invest in the City is bollocks.
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?