Butts Park Arena is new home (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
I don't know how this chap wasn't interviewed or quoted when that article was first written.

tbf he does also confirm the club looked closely at the site.

So it appears in this instance, everybody is right ;)
 

D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Whilst we were all pretty sceptical on the idea, get the feeling we've all been toyed with again.

Meh. In its own way I'm actually reassured if they were looking closely at the site.

It does at least suggest an attempt to make something happen beyond telling people!
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
Meh. In its own way I'm actually reassured if they were looking closely at the site.

It does at least suggest an attempt to make something happen beyond telling people!
We could all go to a car showroom though and look at a Ferrari couldn't we, even though we haven't got this money and know we can't afford it. ;)
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
Meh. In its own way I'm actually reassured if they were looking closely at the site.

It does at least suggest an attempt to make something happen beyond telling people!

I don't see it like that.
To me it seems like a point of leverage which any salient negotiator would see right through.
It hasn't confirmed anything.
 

Pipehitterz

Well-Known Member
that article just appeasr to be the opinion of a guy that wants to buy the land.
there is a sizable chunk of land up there, and a parkland behind it, i'd be amazed if we couldnt squeeze a ground in it that would hold 30,000, when we see grounds squeezed in other towns, it would make business sense to bring us back into a central area
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
that article just appeasr to be the opinion of a guy that wants to buy the land.
there is a sizable chunk of land up there, and a parkland behind it, i'd be amazed if we couldnt squeeze a ground in it that would hold 30,000, when we see grounds squeezed in other towns, it would make business sense to bring us back into a central area
Can't see any way at all where you could squeeze a 20,000 seater in, let alone a 30,000 seater.
 

Pipehitterz

Well-Known Member
Can't see any way at all where you could squeeze a 20,000 seater in, let alone a 30,000 seater.
that mainstand thats already there is as wide as the north/south ricoh stands
if you stand on the site and take a really good look you can easily imagine a stadium of 30.000, saint have one that would fit in that spot for sure
 

pw362

Well-Known Member
Asked about longstanding rumours of talks with the Sky Blues over a potential move to The Butts, Mr Sharp indicated any possibility of that had seemingly been ruled out some time ago.

He said: “As everybody knows, we’re selling their tickets for them. We talk to them, but we do not have any specific plans to work with them.

“I’m quite adamant about this. That’s why I’m trying to develop this stadium for Coventry Rugby.

“They’ve certainly had a look at it. The size is a restriction, cost of development is another restriction. The fact we play rugby there and that the pitch is not suited to football is yet another restriction.”
The words of Coventry RFC chairman. Its not happening
 

Pipehitterz

Well-Known Member
You've never been to the Butts have you? The main stand only holds 3000 and is about a third if that of the depth of any of the Ricoh stands

its a main stand
which means its the longest stand

my 'squeeze' makes the ground rotate 90 degrees so this is now the new width of any stadium

gotta think outside the box
you really think we wouldnt develop it befor we moved in??

saints 33.000 stadium cost 32 mil to build, and has permision to take that to 50.000 without extending the floorspan, thats gotta be worth an investment, look how its changed them
 

Terry Gibson's perm

Well-Known Member
its a main stand
which means its the longest stand

my 'squeeze' makes the ground rotate 90 degrees so this is now the new width of any stadium

gotta think outside the box
you really think we wouldnt develop it befor we moved in??

saints 33.000 stadium cost 32 mil to build, and has permision to take that to 50.000 without extending the floorspan, thats gotta be worth an investment, look how its changed them


What also helped Southampton was a rich owner pumping in millions to the playing staff and not teams of lawyers and worthless chief executives.
 

Pipehitterz

Well-Known Member
What also helped Southampton was a rich owner pumping in millions to the playing staff and not teams of lawyers and worthless chief executives.

okay fine we give up
nice call, lets stay at the wasps stadium and NEVER get anywhere in life

im not trying to argue, im putting out REAL possibilities that could and WOULD make us something again
sorry for trying, i'll just join you all and give up a dream too
 

Terry Gibson's perm

Well-Known Member
okay fine we give up
nice call, lets stay at the wasps stadium and NEVER get anywhere in life

im not trying to argue, im putting out REAL possibilities that could and WOULD make us something again
sorry for trying, i'll just join you all and give up a dream too


I havent given up on anything and I certainly don't want to stop where we are, but having been past the butts on the train and around it doesn't feel big enough and massive barriers will be put up against any move there, lack of parking and most importantly a very unhelpful council.

my opinion for what it's worth is we would be better off on the borders of the city.

plus if they build the new ground we have no idea of the new rental terms it could be back up to a million a year plus for all we know.
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
that article just appeasr to be the opinion of a guy that wants to buy the land.
there is a sizable chunk of land up there, and a parkland behind it, i'd be amazed if we couldnt squeeze a ground in it that would hold 30,000, when we see grounds squeezed in other towns, it would make business sense to bring us back into a central area

FFS, you can't just pave over a park you don't own. What nonsense.
 

Pipehitterz

Well-Known Member
wasps well definitely need our million a year with their attendances

ive walked that whole area, its big enough, you'd need to aquire some buildings(as spurs did) to the right, and could incorperate the pub in the corner, but flipping the stadium 90 degrees fits it in
MK dons (35million)whole building is 140m x 180m , would love to know what w bit of clever engineering would do to the butts, the stadium could be built around playing rugby still, just like whats happened at bristol city, the just sis 3 stands in 2 years
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member

Otis

Well-Known Member
No way you can build a stadium large enough at the Butts. Just not possible. There's the retirement village within yards too. You think a 30,000 seater stadium can be built right next door to a retirement village? Seriously?

It's a nonsense and to talk of a 'squeeze' is laughable unfortunately.
 

Pipehitterz

Well-Known Member
No way you can build a stadium large enough at the Butts. Just not possible. There's the retirement village within yards too. You think a 30,000 seater stadium can be built right next door to a retirement village? Seriously?

It's a nonsense and to talk of a 'squeeze' is laughable unfortunately.

spurs moved everyone out of buildings that had been family owned for 100 years.
the A12 in london aquired hundreds of houses to build a link to london, it isnt unusual to buy up property
 

OffenhamSkyBlue

Well-Known Member

Nick, Les Reid's affirmation that his exclusive was right is misleading. Anyone that heard Jon Sharp from Cov Rugby on BBC C&W's "Ruck and Maul" last night will have heard him confirm that the Sky Blues had visited the BPA, but that there are significant obstacles to either the Sky Blues or Cov United entering into a ground-share, and there had been no further discussions.
That does not constitute anything CLOSE to confirmation of groundshare talks.
More like another case of journalists trying to make their paper sound better than the competition. Shame ... I have a great deal of respect for Les Reid's integrity.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Nick, Les Reid's affirmation that his exclusive was right is misleading. Anyone that heard Jon Sharp from Cov Rugby on BBC C&W's "Ruck and Maul" last night will have heard him confirm that the Sky Blues had visited the BPA, but that there are significant obstacles to either the Sky Blues or Cov United entering into a ground-share, and there had been no further discussions.
That does not constitute anything CLOSE to confirmation of groundshare talks.
More like another case of journalists trying to make their paper sound better than the competition. Shame ... I have a great deal of respect for Les Reid's integrity.

To be fair if the club were serious Mr Sharp would not be the main person to convince really.
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
reading that article would suggest its private leasehold ownership of the whole thing

spurs moved everyone out of buildings that had been family owned for 100 years.
the A12 in london aquired hundreds of houses to build a link to london, it isnt unusual to buy up property

I think you are a tad prone to bouts of wishful thinking, try checking out the facts for yourself.

Also I remember the club tried buying up property around Highfield Road, they either never had enough land or decided that the location being inside the town was not viable. When Highfield Road was built the site was on the outskirts of the city, now like the Butts it is surrounded by mature development, unless you have compulsory purchase rights getting adjacent land will be a bugger to negotiate.
 
Last edited:

Grendel

Well-Known Member
I think you are a tad prone to bouts of wishful thinking, try checking out the facts for yourself.

Also I remember the club tried buying up property around Highfield Road, they either never had enough land or decided that the location being inside the town was not viable. When Highfield Road was built the site was on the outskirts of the city, now like the Butts it is surrounded by mature development, unless you have compulsory purchase rights getting adjacent land will be a bugger to negotiate.

Sharp himself says that he is in talks about purchasing land around the stadium.
 

Nick

Administrator
I think you are a tad prone to bouts of wishful thinking, try checking out the facts for yourself.

Also I remember the club tried buying up property around Highfield Road, they either never had enough land or decided that the location being inside the town was not viable. When Highfield Road was built the site was on the outskirts of the city, now like the Butts it is surrounded by mature development, unless you have compulsory purchase rights getting adjacent land will be a bugger to negotiate.
Isn't the current owner buying land?
 

OffenhamSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
To be fair if the club were serious Mr Sharp would not be the main person to convince really.

Not sure about that, Grendel. He is the one who appears to be taking the decisions to acquire ownership (or lease) of the land around the BPA, which, according to his radio interview last night, will enable them to use the ground for "more than 15 games of rugby a year".

But the implication that that constitutes a ground-share with the Sky Blues is a big step, in my view. He was "adamant" that there are "no specific plans to work with [Sky Blues], or Cov United, or anyone else", and that his only aim is to improve the position of Coventry Rugby, financially, commercially and on the pitch.

I know everyone is desperate to hear some news about where the great football club we all love will end up playing, but I would be surprised if that is BPA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top