Grendel
Well-Known Member
Spot on. If we agree the deal on offer it will reduce the playing budget by 80%
That's fine as long as we stay in the third least occupied stadium as a percentage of capacity in the country,
Hope For Sky Blues Academy (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter ashbyjan
- Start date
Spot on. If we agree the deal on offer it will reduce the playing budget by 80%
That's fine as long as we stay in the third least occupied stadium as a percentage of capacity in the country,
Grendel
Well-Known Member
There is no deal as - if you are connected as you pretend to be - you well know.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
What's the point of suggesting an alternative if it's not being progressed.
Obviously we all want our own 30,000 stadium in the town centre but it ain't gonna happen.
The Ricoh is all we are left with so that's where we should stay.
Yes it's on hold but we have 2 years to get the Legals out the way, put the new stadium on hold for 10 years and get the best long term deal we can.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Maybe we should be pressing the people involved to make progress on that then, what we actually want. Instead of encouraging them to enter a deal we don't want but feel forced into.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Llb
The truth is you'd urinate on Jimmy Hills ashes if Eastwood told you to and then come on here and say you were fertilising the earth,
Only the totally deluded listen to you.
You are finished regarding any credibility on this issue.
They cross your palm with silver and you do their bidding.
The truth is you'd urinate on Jimmy Hills ashes if Eastwood told you to and then come on here and say you were fertilising the earth,
Only the totally deluded listen to you.
You are finished regarding any credibility on this issue.
They cross your palm with silver and you do their bidding.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
It's on hold waiting for Sisu to complete the "irrelevant to CCFC " Legals .
Hold on, that whole childish rant never mentioned an actual suggestion to move this forward.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Totally agree.
Now of course I will be called a Wasps fan and right up their arse!
The Ricoh is all we have.
I understand why you say this, but I firmly believe that when you sift through the PR, and all the other bullshit from both sides - ultimately Wasps want us gone from the Ricoh.
The reason for this I believe is that they see any potential success of ours as a huge threat to their modus operandi, which is to be the No.1 sporting entity in this City.
CCFC in the Championship would be a bigger draw, the general media/public would forget about them - imagine what would happen if we were a PL team.
I can understand why the Ricoh appeals as the only option, because we are relying on SISU to provide an alternative, which after 3 years they've made no progress on. However I don't think we will get a choice on this.
The sooner people see the Wasps position for the dressed up bollocks that it is, the sooner we can as fans start to think what ( if anything ) we can do going forward.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Suicide?
Otis
Well-Known Member
I refuse to listen to anyone who tries to suggest an alternative?
Really? Really??
Would very much appreciate it if you can show me where I have refused to listen to anyone.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
To be fair there is a long list of people I'd prefer to kill in this saga before I thought of myself.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Do find this all rather ridiculous to be quite honest.
Have a long hard think about it and I think you will very much find and it is abundantly crystal clear that Grendel is the one in a completely entrenched position, not me.
I do listen and happy to listen to any suggestion to get us out of this mess. Grendel is the one that doesn't even want talks to take place. THAT is refusing to listen.
I can't advocate moving away again to ground share because that was disastrous last time, an abomination of a decision.
Playing here in Coventry surely has to be a better alternative than playing 34 miles away. That is obvious. Grendel talks of an 80% cut in playing budget, but just what would it be if we had a ground share tens of miles away playing in front of just a handful of supporters?
Sisu have been talking and talking and talking and talking of building a new stadium for years and years and not a single brick to be seen, not a single plot of land to be found.
Moving away this time with no intent to come back to the Ricoh (unlike last time) would leave us ground-sharing for many years to come and would all but destroy this club.
What else is there? There's the Ricoh and ........... ??????
I said I would be happy with the Butts if it was feasible, but just couldn't see how it was possible to build it and knew it would be tremendously difficult to do so and the opposition to it would be absolutely huge.
It's not a case of two evils as I see it, just a case of it is all we have got.
If we moved away to ground share we would lose fans forever without any shadow of a doubt. You only have to look back to the talk on here last time. One more season at Northampton and many fans said they would have been done with the club.
But anyway, back to the first point. Read through the threads and think about and it is very, very clear that Grendel is the one who won't listen, not me. He is the one totally entrenched in his thinking. I am very open to suggestions.
New ground? Fine, but where is it? Not holding my breath. Butts? It's just not going to happen is it.
Ground share? That IS the one thing I am totally against and that is because I truly believe that would do incredible damage to this club, knowing that Sisu have not kept their promises, seemingly have no intention of building anything and therefore knowing it would be for a number of years away.
Until Sisu go there looks like there will be no new stadium and they look like they have no intention of leaving.
I applaud what the SBT are trying to do here and we should ALL advocate and encourage talks to take place. It is ridiculous to not wish that.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Unbelievable comment, you should get some penicillin for that poisonous mind mate!
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
It is amazing that someone with such self proclaimed negotiation skills doesn't want people to talk. Surely step one of a negotiation is start talking?
As for pushing our owners to do the alternatives to the Ricoh has a section of our fan base been in a coma for the last three years or have you all just turned into RFC?
If SISU come up with a solid, tangible plan there might be something to push our owners for. So far the BPA arena has just been the same wind and waffle we've had for three years. TF and CA can't even seem to get there stories straight.
As for pushing our owners to do the alternatives to the Ricoh has a section of our fan base been in a coma for the last three years or have you all just turned into RFC?
If SISU come up with a solid, tangible plan there might be something to push our owners for. So far the BPA arena has just been the same wind and waffle we've had for three years. TF and CA can't even seem to get there stories straight.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
What I think is interesting is that often when one SISU/ARVO person pipes up there is a contradictory media statement from one of the others shortly after.
Its as if they don't have a clear plan or strategy in place and there are unresolved disagreements at board level. :troll:
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Only a moron would ever think decisions are signed off by anyone other than one person.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Who is She?
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
I think quite the opposite. I think wasps want us at the Ricoh. I don't understand why you wouldn't want a paying renter and bringing in 300k fans a season which is 100k more than wasps.
As for options it seems people on here hate wasps and the council so much it's anything but the Ricoh at all costs when there simply isn't another option and especially within the next 2 years when the deal runs out. So like or not we will be at the Ricoh in 2 years time.
Just like Otis, any ideas I will consider but when I haven't seen a brick laid for a new stadium or I hear a suggestion of the butts when my back garden would be more viable then yes I really don't see another way forward. Oh and as for moving again what a disgraceful idea and anyone who advocates it should be ashamed when it basically almost killed the club just 2 years ago.
P.s really don't want to rent to wasps and then our landlords but what else can we do.
As for options it seems people on here hate wasps and the council so much it's anything but the Ricoh at all costs when there simply isn't another option and especially within the next 2 years when the deal runs out. So like or not we will be at the Ricoh in 2 years time.
Just like Otis, any ideas I will consider but when I haven't seen a brick laid for a new stadium or I hear a suggestion of the butts when my back garden would be more viable then yes I really don't see another way forward. Oh and as for moving again what a disgraceful idea and anyone who advocates it should be ashamed when it basically almost killed the club just 2 years ago.
P.s really don't want to rent to wasps and then our landlords but what else can we do.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I don't think there's necessarily disagreements at board level. I think it just demonstrates that there is no coherent plan so they can't get their stories straight. If there was a hymn sheet they'd both be singing the same tune. The fact they aren't tells me it's just more of the same as the last three years only now it's TF and CA instead of TF and ML. Which is also why I can't see CA being here much longer. He seems to have come here with a reputation in football worth saving. If he's still here at Xmas I for one would be very surprised.
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Quiet obvious to me TF and CA have been out manoeuvred and hamstrung by Sepalla's obsession with the law courts. Football League rules dictate all member clubs must have a10 year minimum plan on where they play their matches. Looks to me the FL have hardened up and put pressure on ccfc to come up with acceptable proposals so I believe it is now very much over to you messrs Fisher and Anderson
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
I keep hearing that stuff about 10 years but I don't think I've ever found it in a published document and I've looked now & then, if you or anyone else can find a reference I'd be grateful for it.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I'll find it later
What Rupert keeps doing is putting hope above realism howevr. He refuses to accept a narrative that would likely have to be accepted by the football league, that would allow the football club flexibility in that commitment.
(Again, I have to emphasise this narrative isn't necessarily 'truth' or one I'd agree with, but to deny its existence is madness)
There's reference to ten years here.
"1.1 Security of Tenure
The club must demonstrate security of tenure as required by The Football Association and the league of which it is a member. (Standardised Rule 2.3.2)
NB To be eligible for promotion to the The Football League a ground lease must be for a minimum unexpired term of 10 years, from the time of a club’s entry into The Football League."
http://www.thefa.com/~/media/files/pdf/my-football/grade-a-may-2015.ashx
I also hope my reply wasn't to quick. Don't want to upset the apple cart and all that!
stupot07
Well-Known Member
It clearly means nothing, given they have allowed a year away at six fields and a 2+2 year deal at the Ricoh. I really can't see the kicking us out of the football league even if we carry on for the next 10 years on short term contracts. We're in a very unusual position and so thr FL discretion will be used.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I'll find it later
What Rupert keeps doing is putting hope above realism howevr. He refuses to accept a narrative that would likely have to be accepted by the football league, that would allow the football club flexibility in that commitment.
(Again, I have to emphasise this narrative isn't necessarily 'truth' or one I'd agree with, but to deny its existence is madness)
The real concern will be if they allow dispensation on the mileage rule but yes they will definitely allow the club to move out of the city. Wasps have said they have suspended talks.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Yes by moving out the city will further reduce incomes and put pressure on Sisu to finance it or release the club for sale at cost.
Such a move would certainly have a sting in its tail.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
You won't find me arguing that another Northampton scenario is the way forward, short term you are right to a point in that we only have the Ricoh at this minute. If we want the club to be successful then the long term aim of every fan should be for us to have our own stadium, how do we do that? Well I don't have the exact answer, I suspect to do that we will need to get the owners out of the club. So we need to put it to them to either get serious on a news stadium or move on, rather than asking them to sign us up to a long term Ricoh deal
There's a group of people on here that just seem to enjoy pissing all over the idea of a new stadium to push forward their Ricoh agenda. In my mind staying under the thumb of Wasps at the Ricoh for the next 50 years could be just as damaging as another Northampton scenario but with just a much slower prolonged death.
There's a group of people on here that just seem to enjoy pissing all over the idea of a new stadium to push forward their Ricoh agenda. In my mind staying under the thumb of Wasps at the Ricoh for the next 50 years could be just as damaging as another Northampton scenario but with just a much slower prolonged death.
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
I don't want or need to push the Ricoh for my agenda. I am just simply a realist. I agree a new stadium would be the answer but it's just not viable in my eyes. I look at it like this.
A new stadium won't have 32k seats, agree?
A new stadium needs a shit load of money. Agree?
A new stadium will have just 23-26 matches a year. Could it host other major events like the Ricoh does?
Where is this new stadium going? Outside Coventry definitely. Is this acceptable? It depends. But not really for me under any circumstances. We are Coventry city to me and many others.
So just all in all I don't get this extra pie money and beer money with the occasional conference is worth all the effort as described above?
Happy to be proved wrong and some hard facts.
My opinion is its just not worth it making butts a much more better option but just simply not realistic but I like the idea of two Cov teams using a sporting stadium and working together.
A new stadium won't have 32k seats, agree?
A new stadium needs a shit load of money. Agree?
A new stadium will have just 23-26 matches a year. Could it host other major events like the Ricoh does?
Where is this new stadium going? Outside Coventry definitely. Is this acceptable? It depends. But not really for me under any circumstances. We are Coventry city to me and many others.
So just all in all I don't get this extra pie money and beer money with the occasional conference is worth all the effort as described above?
Happy to be proved wrong and some hard facts.
My opinion is its just not worth it making butts a much more better option but just simply not realistic but I like the idea of two Cov teams using a sporting stadium and working together.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Yeah, the Butts notion in theory is an excellent one. City and Cov together would be fantastic for the city and could also prove to be a threat to Wasps if proved to be a success.
In an ideal world, best thing to happen would be Sisu gone, Wasps back to London and the City taking over the Ricoh.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
The Butts could be done I'm pretty sure, wouldn't be without its challenges, there would be many of them to overcome. But a strong willing and desire from all sides involved and I'm sure it could be possible.
Won't happen though if we just dismiss it as a non starter without giving it any thought on how to overcome the problems.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Yes there would be challenges but it looks better prospect to me than a long term deal at the Ricoh. I'd also support the Butts move, if there is a genuine will from all sides then the problems could be overcome.
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
New ground. There is nowhere quite obvious or it wi
You can't see us being kicked out ? Well I can. This 2+2 which is effectively 4 years was a concession to appease the situation at the time, we are halfway through and there's no land been acquired, no suitable or realistic proposal of any either and nowhere to go in my opinion. There's other things the FA, FL or both have to consider and that is pressure from other clubs not just current members of the FL either, there are a number of old established football league ex members such as Tranmere Rovers, Halifax Town plus newly wannabes all likely to be nudging the FA and FL in the ribs and asking them to work to the rule book, As said I think there is a danger of loosing this Golden Share which would mean losing our FL status and if that was to happen how far down the football pyramid could we go ?
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Price worth paying if we stay at the Ricoh I'm sure.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Pressure from other clubs will be to keep us in the league.
Because once one falls, there's a danger they all do. Plus, other clubs in similar situations won't want to handicap themselves to a position where they openly have no negotiating power.
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Other clubs won't bother a jot my friend. It will only take one to complain and quote the rule book and the FL will have to act and if they act within their rule book the FA will back them.