So you saying - "You're going to have to stop trying to play the whole "I didn't say those exact words" game" isn't you telling me how I can/can't post and interact here?
'We all want Coventry City to continue playing at Ricoh' (37 Viewers)
- Thread starter armybike
- Start date
So you saying - "You're going to have to stop trying to play the whole "I didn't say those exact words" game" isn't you telling me how I can/can't post and interact here?
Nick
Administrator
No it's me trying to push the point across it's boring. It wasn't a threat. In fact you are doing it on different threads and have to a few different users for some reason.
At least you haven't denied it. You try to shut down threads by doing it, like the away kit thread.
You've indicated I don't see this article as PR - something that is factually incorrect.
I point out your comment is baseless and you to stop the way I post - thereby telling me how I can/can't post and interact here.
Nick
Administrator
So you have said I'm paranoid about pr for saying this is pr, but you also think it's pr?
Makes sense.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Like they do with the requirement for a 10 year deal ??
They are more like guidelines to be honest in that respect if Wasps insisted on primacy the FL would just roll over.
It is better all round if Wasps play on Sunday as they will increase there attendances as there will be few clashes. (Although it does clash with Coventry Welsh Ladies)
Also the pitch will be at its best for the football.
Nick, why was the Fulham game not allowed ? Was it spite as suggested or some other reason ?
Otis
Well-Known Member
I am waiting for the answer on that one too.
I also wonder about this ruling. Why do we think the FL will insist on enforcing that? Why wouldn't they just fold on the matter? Not exactly shown balls in the past have they.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
I think the official reason given for the Fulham match was that the pitch wouldn't be ready, don't take that as fact just what I'm remembering
Otis
Well-Known Member
Need to delve further. Now you have said that that rings a bell.
Guess we will never know if it wasn't going to be ready or they were just saying it wasn't going to be ready.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
It isn't exactly an unprecedented scenario compared to what happened to us. Quite a few football league teams ground share with rugby clubs, so I think there is an understanding between the football league and the rfu that football takes primacy.I am waiting for the answer on that one too.
I also wonder about this ruling. Why do we think the FL will insist on enforcing that? Why wouldn't they just fold on the matter? Not exactly shown balls in the past have they.
Should wasps take the stance that they want primacy it would be interesting to see the football league and rfu responses,
Tbh if wasps want to play on the Saturday it wouldn't make the slightest difference as wasps fixtures would be scheduled for when we are away.
RegTheDonk
Well-Known Member
Well whatever the motivation, maybe the CT or the powers that be will remember this stance in a couple of years time...they can hardly say
We all want Coventry City to continue playing at Ricoh if they offer unreasonable terms when the rent is due for renewal.
We all want Coventry City to continue playing at Ricoh if they offer unreasonable terms when the rent is due for renewal.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Why are we necessary to their financial model?
Orca
Well-Known Member
From a planning permission perspective, the fact that this site already has access, parking, isn't near to other properties and already has similar facilities in place means it will have very little basis for any objections. You can view the full application here: http://planning.coventry.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=783883. My guess is that the 17 other sites are not currently sports facilities, were on or near green belt (like the Broadstreet facility they are currently using under temporary planning permission http://bit.ly/29FH3RD) or would certainly take longer to complete.
Having read the objections to the Higgs site planning application, only one appears to have any basis in planning law, that is the one that calls for the protection of the bats who live in an around the area (bats are a protected species). This in itself wouldn't prevent the work being carried out, only the work must put in place mitigation to protect and promote the species during and after the work.
Personally, I still don't think that the selection of the AHC was designed to deliberately distress the CCFC academy, especially given the club's statement, still on the official website, that we would build an integrated facility for the academy and 1st team (http://bit.ly/29M7NQc). However, it's clear given our owner's inaction on carrying out these stated plans has left the Academy in limbo. Wasps and CSF are unfortunately under no obligation to help our academy so if an agreement is reached for us to continue at the Higgs it will be down to goodwill and nothing else.
Last edited:
Otis
Well-Known Member
Be interested to know if the other shared ones are a combination or ownership, or are owned by football clubs with rugby teams renting, or vice versa.
Just wonder if we are the only football team renting, rather than renting out.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
In terms of the Rugby club owning, while the football club rent then yeah, it's us. Stockport were the first example of a situation such as we find ourselves in... at about the time they plunged through the leagues. Sale then moved out and moved elsewhere themselves, how everyone must have laughed.
A fair few joint renting.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Just wonder if it weakens our position with the FL.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Otis
Well-Known Member
It not being our ground. Us renting rather than renting out.
Will it weaken our position? You have to bear in mind the constant assertion that we were supposedly building our own stadium and didn't want to stay at the Ricoh anyway.
Will the FL see our case as weaker because it is not our ground and because we have consistently said we are moving anyway?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Nothing has changed, we were and are still renting. I would have thought now the option to buy is gone it strengthens our position with the FL who will be even more sympathetic to our needs.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Otis
Well-Known Member
I know nothing has changed, Stu, was thinking more in terms of if Wasps started to be funny with us and tried to force us out.
If Wasps seriously wanted us out I just can't see how the FL can make a rugby club that owns it's own ground accommodate a football team if they don't want to.
Think the FL would then waiver its rules on where we could ground share.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Well they couldn't force the former owners of acl to accommodate us if they had decided they didn't want us here. I would imagine, the FL would be fleixible in where we could ground share and a few more clubs may be more amenable to letting us ground share temporarily so we may have more options than sixfields.
I didn't go to sixfields the first time around, but if wasps were to kick us out then I would go and support the club.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Otis
Well-Known Member
You will have to send me updates then, Stu.
We go back to Northampton and I will become an armchair fan unfortunately. I couldn't even go if I wanted to, it wouldn't be possible, but I wouldn't want to anyway.
Just wouldn't be our club any more to my mind.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
At the moment we aren't being pushed to have a ten year deal by the authorities as they believe we are looking to build a new ground. What they have been told to make them think it is happening is anyones guess although you would think the sort of comments made by the council when the Butts idea went public aids the club as they can say to the authorities they are trying but being blocked.
The only other requirements are in terms of standards of facilities, which isn't an issue, and primacy, which CCC assured us was agreed.
Otis
Well-Known Member
stupot07
Well-Known Member
So, what's the answer then? Its your scenario where Wasps don't want us at the Ricoh and kick us out, and we have no choice but to temporary groundshare. Under those circumstances, surely it would still be our club? Or do we just abandon them? Granted not everyone would be able to get to the temporary venue, but it would still be our club?
I see that scenario as completely different to the six fields move.
And tbh, if that situation was to arise I would like to think we could play at the butts with some temporary stands and a reduced capacity rather than move away.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Well they must have authorised the 2+2 deal we had when we first came back so its likely to be fairly easy going until then. At that point more questions might get asked.
Of course if Wasps are still refusing to talk to the club and CCC are making statements about blocking any move within the city its not going to take much arguing from the club to persuade the authorities they are being forced out.
Otis
Well-Known Member
I would be happy with that as a temporary measure.
But as I have said, I don't believe Wasps do want us out. As long as we can fit in with them and it suits then I think they will let us stay.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
I think it's an irrelevant point going on about the primacy issue, if wasps state they want to play on the Saturday then the football league and rfu will collaborate so our fixtures don't clash and we will still play on the Saturday.
The football league can't force ACL to extend our deal at the Ricoh but primacy is one of the lowest points of priority in negotiations as it is the most simple to work around.
Otis
Well-Known Member
So still too complicated for most City supporters then, eh.
thekidfromstrettoncamp
Well-Known Member
The thing i cannot understand is that there has been no request by the F L asfar as i know as to any progress on any new ground or a more permanant deal at the Ricoh.Perhaps they wait untill an eviction notice is served.By the way wonder what SUSI would do if roles were reversed
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Pretty sure it was said at the May SCG, the one where CRFC attended and they talked about the possibility of the butts development that the FL had been out and were happy with the (non) progress
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Kind of indicates the level of "investigation" or "monitoring" going on when any BPA scheme linked to CCFC is presently a non starter because the head lease owner wont get involved with CCFC's owners doesn't it ........ but according to the club the FL are happy with the progress being made.
As I understand it the SCG minutes are subject to a final sign off by CCFC so are they used to some degree as a means of PR that people assume is independent of CCFC?
more generally on other comments people have made
I think, that sometimes, people might do well to stand back and actually look where most "information" comes from. Not everything that comes out of CCFC turns out to be factual and a fair chunk of it is PR. I don't have a problem with the PR element, I would expect CCFC to put themselves in a positive light, but then again I wouldn't expect anything else from other parties such as Wasps
The FL as a regulatory body is not in my opinion either strong or reliable. The FL are able to use their discretion and their main purpose is really just to ensure "the integrity of their competition" ie that the fixtures are played. It is very unlikely that they see ground sharing or primacy as a major problem and will use their discretion to find a workable fit. The FA does have responsibility for the rules/regulations but seem to avoid confrontation wherever possible dealing with the more straight forward issues to prove worth but the real power now is the Premier League.
As such I doubt there is any real urgency at FL or FA in finding a longer term solution to CCFC
Going forward, given the harder line now being adopted, then I would expect Wasps to stick tightly to contractual obligations and anything else will be extra and chargeable. CCFC are going to go where instead of the Ricoh? Just an opinion but whilst some would stick with the club I do not believe even close to half of last seasons average would move to Sixfields or say Nene Park even if it is dressed up as being forced out of the City
As for the notion that CCFC are necessary to the Wasps financial model. The reality is that the club do very little hospitality (in terms of food etc) so the Wasps income derived from CCFC is the rent , around £100k per annum plus the F&B income (550k) which nets down to £72K profit after costs and share to CCFC plus some car parking. (football F&B spend at matches is around £1.97 per head inc. VAT). The Wasps Holdings turnover is heading towards £30m
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
Because of the income we provide, ie rent , F&B, car parks, bars, casino, hotel etc
And just the extra footfall created around the stadium.
Then there's the link to a professional football club and all the mentions the stadium
gets through the media and TV games, if we get any.
This is all lucrative free advertising.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Rent £100k
F&B Gross take from football circa £550k inc VAT after deducting costs the profit is split 50:50 with CCFC 72K
Parking 2000 spaces 23 times per year tops
Bars the average spend of a football fan at the Ricoh £1.97 per head inc VAT
Casino relies on gambling not the fact that football fans go in there for an hour or two either side of a match 23 times a year
Hotel I would suspect that the occupancy rate is affected by the rooms being unavailable on match days. CCFC sell the occupancy of match day boxes
Footfall is fine so long as it creates income CCFC creates gross income £550K Wasps match day get a spend of £5.84 on average or £1.1m and that income (football or/and rugby) brings with it costs
The sponsorship of the stadium is not just about football and the stadium now gets a fair number of mentions for rugby with tv highlights let alone the other events
Wasps would certainly like us there but necessary to the success of their financial plan i do not think so - not when turnover excl VAT is heading towards £30m per year - CCFC do not even bring £1m of that and after deduction of costs the benefit to Wasps is even smaller
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
And like it or not, there's a cost to Wasps of us being there, that we *are* rivals for support. Therefore any gain they make has to make that cost worthwhile.
If *I* were Wasps (and for CCFC's sake it's probably good that I'm not), I'd be wanting far far far more off CCFC to even consider a new rental agreement.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I would agree NW.
I think that it is plain to see that attitudes towards CCFC are hardening and that any leaway that may have existed is quickly fading. I would image that come 2018 there will be a significant increase in costs from the £4375 CCFC pay to rent the stadium each match.
I cant help thinking that the last thing that CCFC need right now is a confrontational stance either towards or by them