Does anyone else get the feeling? (3 Viewers)

[torchomatic]

SISU have a track record of asset stripping. Of course they will sell Ryton before leaving. They will probably check players mouths for gold fillings.

But they cant sell Ryton without having secured a new training facility.

 

---

[Sky Blue Kid]

That there is something going on behind the scenes? For example, why wasn't a new manager appointed when TM left? The fact that Venus has still not resigned after five successive defeats? In today's post match comments MV slagged off the club - and he is a Director! There are rumours and more rumours which surely have foundation considering the above. Why wait until January I wonder?

Totally agree. Everything is pointing to sisu doing a runner within the next 18 months.
On top of what you have raised I would add
one last effort this season to squeeze as much money out of the clubs fans by increased st prices and false promises.

No investement in the playing side and a distinct lack of comunication with the fans

The proposed asset stripping of ryton, playing staff and management

No comunication or effort to sort the ricoh ground issue. We wont have any where to play in 18 months time

I said all this 6 months ago and was shot down by the usual suspects on here. Well it looks like we are several steps nearer to sisu walking away and doing what they do best asset stripping.
The club will have no ground, no training facilities, no academy and no playing squad when they do and they wont give a shit

Lets hope it's not Liquidation!

 

[skybluetony176]

But they cant sell Ryton without having secured a new training facility.

Not true. They have to replace pitch provision. They haven't been told that they have to build a new training ground at all. Big difference.

 

[Nick]

Mr Jones said: “To make things clear, we have had consultations with Sport England and the conversations have been in agreement with the loss of facilities and for those to be relocated.


Rugby Council’s local plan specifies that Ryton cannot be developed until the club satisfies Rugby Borough Council and Sport England that replacement facilities can be secured.

The Club would like to reiterate that the current site cannot be developed until it has demonstrated to Rugby Council and Sport England that an adequate replacement has been provided for."

 

[torchomatic]

Not true. They have to replace pitch provision. They haven't been told that they have to build a new training ground at all. Big difference.

See Nick's post "replacement facilities".

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Mr Jones said: “To make things clear, we have had consultations with Sport England and the conversations have been in agreement with the loss of facilities and for those to be relocated.


Rugby Council’s local plan specifies that Ryton cannot be developed until the club satisfies Rugby Borough Council and Sport England that replacement facilities can be secured.

The Club would like to reiterate that the current site cannot be developed until it has demonstrated to Rugby Council and Sport England that an adequate replacement has been provided for."

It doesn't make clear if what they want is replacement of a field, a generic training pitch or three, or a CCFC specific training base.

 

[Nick]

It doesn't make clear if what they want is replacement of a field, a generic training pitch or three, or a CCFC specific training base.

but then facilities would suggest more than a pitch as well as relocated. Agree it doesn't say ccfc or even owned by ccfc either.

So it could be squatting at Warwick uni

 

[torchomatic]

It doesn't make clear if what they want is replacement of a field, a generic training pitch or three, or a CCFC specific training base.

I wouldn't have thought "facilities" would be just a field.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

I wouldn't have thought "facilities" would be just a field.

You clearly never saw my school's sports 'facilities'!

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Mr Jones said: “To make things clear, we have had consultations with Sport England and the conversations have been in agreement with the loss of facilities and for those to be relocated.


Rugby Council’s local plan specifies that Ryton cannot be developed until the club satisfies Rugby Borough Council and Sport England that replacement facilities can be secured.

The Club would like to reiterate that the current site cannot be developed until it has demonstrated to Rugby Council and Sport England that an adequate replacement has been provided for."

The highlighted pieces should say "Has been provided for, and secured/purchased" Not "Can be secured"

 

[skybluetony176]

See Nick's post "replacement facilities".

Nicks reply unless I'm mistaken is from the clubs website and a misinterpretation of what RBC and Sports England actually said. If you look at the original documents I'm sure you'll find it states pitch provision in those exact words. Not training facilities, not training ground etc. I don't have time at this exact moment to look for the link but I'm sure it's been linked on this site more than once and the wording "pitch provision" highlighted several times because of the assumption that they have to replace the whole facility and not just the pitches.

Like I said, unless I'm mistaken and I am more than happy to be proved wrong. In fact I'd be relieved if I was but I don't think I am.

 

[Hobo]

But they cant sell Ryton without having secured a new training facility.

What about the gold fillings? ;-)

 

[Hobo]

I wouldn't have thought "facilities" would be just a field.

No more an artistic performance space that will benefit the team, the Academy and the local community. I think that sounds better for attracting corporate sponsorship and lottery funding.

 

[skybluetony176]

https://www.rugby.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/1170/ryton-on-dunsmore_-_addendum.pdf

Here you go Torch. Read the last paragraph on this document and tell me where it says alternative training facilities for CCFC must be supplied?

 

[clint van damme]

TF told Cov fans on train back today "no contact from RB or anyone else"

But then lying to fans is in his DNA

to be fair, even if there has been contact, he shouldn't be discussing it with supporters.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Who is RB?

 

[covboy1987]

Just possibly It has finally dawned on SISU that they will not get any money out. They will have to give the club away.

I think the clubs name is still worth money -

 

[Nick]

Nicks reply unless I'm mistaken is from the clubs website and a misinterpretation of what RBC and Sports England actually said. If you look at the original documents I'm sure you'll find it states pitch provision in those exact words. Not training facilities, not training ground etc. I don't have time at this exact moment to look for the link but I'm sure it's been linked on this site more than once and the wording "pitch provision" highlighted several times because of the assumption that they have to replace the whole facility and not just the pitches.

Like I said, unless I'm mistaken and I am more than happy to be proved wrong. In fact I'd be relieved if I was but I don't think I am.

No, one part of it was. The other was quoting rugby council

 

[westcountry_skyblue]

A couple of portakabins on Coundon hall park is probably what sisu will sort out!

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

A couple of portakabins on Coundon hall park is probably what sisu will sort out!

No chance mate, Portakabins are expensive

 

[westcountry_skyblue]

No chance mate, Portakabins are expensive

I'm surprised the players don't have to go home in their kits and boots and wash them themselves!

 

[RegTheDonk]

Assume those "pitches" must be in Rugby Borough too.

 

[hutch1972]

But they cant sell Ryton without having secured a new training facility.

Nothing to say they won't organise a lease on a facility to appease the relevant people , sell Ryton then f.ck off.

 

[skybluetony176]

No, one part of it was. The other was quoting rugby council

I think its actually a sound bite of a quote from Rugby council. If you go on the link I've provided and read the quote in full you can see that they're specifically talking about pitch facilities not training facilities. Read's more to me like all they're bothered about is no playing surfaces in the borough are lost. Says nothing about other facilities and doesn't state that it is to be used as training facilities for CCFC. That's what everyone wants you to believe it's saying but it doesn't actually state that.

Seems more likely that four goalposts will get thrown up in a field somewhere near Rugby (easily done with the new town being built on the radio station site) and we'll end up renting something instead rather than SISU building us a brand shining new all singing all dancing training ground and academy from the monies received from the Ryton sale.

 

[skybluetony176]

Assume those "pitches" must be in Rugby Borough too.

That's the way I would take it.

 

[Captain Dart]

I think its actually a sound bite of a quote from Rugby council. If you go on the link I've provided and read the quote in full you can see that they're specifically talking about pitch facilities not training facilities. Read's more to me like all they're bothered about is no playing surfaces in the borough are lost. Says nothing about other facilities and doesn't state that it is to be used as training facilities for CCFC. That's what everyone wants you to believe it's saying but it doesn't actually state that.

Seems more likely that four goalposts will get thrown up in a field somewhere near Rugby (easily done with the new town being built on the radio station site) and we'll end up renting something instead rather than SISU building us a brand shining new all singing all dancing training ground and academy from the monies received from the Ryton sale.

Exactly as I saw it. Fisher needs to be challenged on this in a way he can't wriggle out of on Thursday.
It has to be established exactly what Sports England require not what Tim Fisher wants people to believe.

 

[skybluetony176]

Exactly as I saw it. Fisher needs to be challenged on this in a way he can't wriggle out of on Thursday.
It has to be established exactly what Sports England require not what Tim Fisher wants people to believe.

Yep, agree 100%. For a city that has two award winning journalist working for competing papers I'm personally more than surprised that one of them haven't approached Sport England for further clarification on what the statement means. I think its pretty clear although some of the wording is slightly ambiguous and open to "interpretation" or selective sound biting as we have seen. I certainly wouldn't take TF's interpretation of it as fact especially having read the document and specifically the closing paragraph in full for myself.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Exactly as I saw it. Fisher needs to be challenged on this in a way he can't wriggle out of on Thursday.
It has to be established exactly what Sports England require not what Tim Fisher wants people to believe.

Better to ask Sport England then, rather than Tim Fisher.

 

[Wheelfass]

Site Conclusion

The site is located adjacent to the settlement boundary and is accessible to the services within the settlement. However, the site is currently used for sports pitches as the Coventry City FC Training Ground and therefore allocation of the site and subsequent development will only be possible subject to policy compliance and the ability to demonstrate the relocation of the sports pitches to an alternative site. The site promoter has demonstrated that recent discussions have taken place with Sport England regarding replacement provision and that the loss of pitches at this site will be acceptable once relocation is confirmed.

Site is considered suitable for development, subject to open space / sports pitch policy compliance to the satisfaction of Sport England.

 

[Captain Dart]

Site Conclusion

The site is located adjacent to the settlement boundary and is accessible to the services within the settlement. However, the site is currently used for sports pitches as the Coventry City FC Training Ground and therefore allocation of the site and subsequent development will only be possible subject to policy compliance and the ability to demonstrate the relocation of the sports pitches to an alternative site. The site promoter has demonstrated that recent discussions have taken place with Sport England regarding replacement provision and that the loss of pitches at this site will be acceptable once relocation is confirmed.

Site is considered suitable for development, subject to open space / sports pitch policy compliance to the satisfaction of Sport England.

So it is clear, the only provision Sports England require is replacement of the pitches, not the the club house, not the offices, not the physiotherapy facilities, not the gym facilities etc. etc.

Fisher certainly needs this putting to him directly on air.

 

[fernandopartridge]

So it is clear, the only provision Sports England require is replacement of the pitches, not the the club house, not the offices, not the physiotherapy facilities, not the gym facilities etc. etc.

Fisher certainly needs this putting to him directly on air.

One thing I wasn't sure of is if the replacement has to be within the borough of Rugby? Is that in the document?

 

[fernandopartridge]

Yep, agree 100%. For a city that has two award winning journalist working for competing papers I'm personally more than surprised that one of them haven't approached Sport England for further clarification on what the statement means. I think its pretty clear although some of the wording is slightly ambiguous and open to "interpretation" or selective sound biting as we have seen. I certainly wouldn't take TF's interpretation of it as fact especially having read the document and specifically the closing paragraph in full for myself.

Because Sport England like most statutory bodies isn't stupid enough to be over-specific in what its terms means in order to allow discretion.

 

[Captain Dart]

One thing I wasn't sure of is if the replacement has to be within the borough of Rugby? Is that in the document?

Pretty irrelevant as far as CCFC is concerned the real issue is what replaces the Ryton facilities currently used by CCFC. Where will they have offices, gym, physios etc etc.
In my water I feel it will all be hired locations on short term contracts none of which will be owned by CCFC. That has to be unacceptable.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Pretty irrelevant as far as CCFC is concerned the real issue is what replaces the Ryton facilities currently used by CCFC. Where will they have offices, gym, physios etc etc.
In my water I feel it will all be hired locations on short term contracts none of which will be owned by CCFC. That has to be unacceptable.

Similar to the academy then.

 

[Captain Dart]

Similar to the academy then.

It is the short term aspect that is most troubling, that and a possible lack of offices, there really should be some at the place where the club plays its games where the admin staff work where anyone visiting or doing business with the club can go.