I'd like to rent a car, and a provider offers me a car to rent and then I could say, ooh, I don't like that car much, I'm not going to bother. Would seem to be a convenient way out for me, yes?
It would be more like you asking a car rental place what they could rent to you and them refusing to tell you.
People are putting there own interpretation on conversations etc and remember CJ is twittering in real time so some mistakes may occur - the only people who can state 100% that academy will pass is the FL and as no proposal has been put to them.
What is being suggested by the Trust is that by working with CSF and Wasps and filling in the gaps themselves by using Ryton or Warwick Uni the club could formulae a new proposal to be put to FL that could preserve the academy.
It's different to the impression put across originally.
This is what concerns me. The goalposts are already moving. They don't seem to me to be mistakes in tweeting or something getting lost in translation, the statements were pretty clear:
"The key point is, it can continue there. In better facilities than it has currently and for less money"
"It's pretty much what we get now. In some cases it's more than before"
"The proposed centre WILL pass the audit."
"At the new facility all parts of the academy can be based there and in theory only there"
Not much ambiguity there yet now its not less money, there is no proposal, let alone assure from the FA that it will pass and the academy facility can not be solely based at Higgs. That's pretty much the opposite!
That's why I think there needs to be some clarification. We know, as do CSF and most likely Wasps, what we get now at Higgs. CSF and Wasps will know what changes there will be following the redevelopment so surely thats the first step. Establish what is and isn't available. Once that is know then everyone knows where they stand.
Out of interest has the Trust also been talking with the Higgs Charity about their restriction that prevents the club agreeing a long term deal?
Surely its not asking too much is it for CA to work with other parties to find a solution is it?
Indeed, equally surely its not asking too much for CSF & Wasps to let CA know exactly what facilities they can offer and on what terms?
CSF even had a quote lined up for the next day and the telegraph had the article on there -
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-md-pulls-out-11635112
This is where I get frustrated with the CT. They can get a quote from CSF about CA's no show incredibly quickly. Why are they not asking them what facilities will be available to the club?