Absolutely on the money CCFC.
Have I missed an academy update? (14 Viewers)
- Thread starter chiefdave
- Start date
Absolutely on the money CCFC.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
wouldn't believe a word until I see it printed in the Observer
shelby76
Well-Known Member
look they know what the academy needs to continue, i don't blame CA for not going and getting led a merry dance, they know what we require its black and white, fucking negotiate, you can't fucking negotiate when it comes to academy status you have the facilities in place or not, whys he going to meet them cap in hand like oliver twist, for there PR stunt.
So what about the negotiations that took place for the current agreement?
The flexibility that the Football League allowed for the set up to be rubber stamped.
What's required isn't black and white.
That's why meetings, discussion and negotiations are required.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Because if he doesn't meet them the academy is finished.
You said it is Black and White, only last week CA said he didn't know what was required himself.
He should get off his lazy arse find out what is needed and go and get it,
shouldn't matter who he needs to talk to he should go out of his way to see these people or does he not actually care?
Or are we to lose the academy because of a fucking email or letter. Fucking amateurish and even immature........
Sorry Sisu are really fuckin uints they have really pissed me of with their it is everyone else s fault that we cant run a football Club time they just fucked off and took over a bowls club.
thekidfromstrettoncamp
Well-Known Member
Who want's the academy them or us if you dont talk(or even turn up )how can you sort any requirements that your not being offered get and meet no excuse.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
One of two things is happening here in my opinion.
They either really don't understand the science of negotiating when you are not in the position of strength. That is when you are asking someone for help who dont have to give you anything, if they don't want to. When you demand and state this is how it is going to be. Then rarely do you get what you want. Usually you get the opposite.
Or, they fully understand the science of negotiation and not getting what they state they want "long term at the Ricoh" "to buy ACL" "long term at the Higgs" is not what they really want and conflict somehow supports and fuels the legal cases, been perceived as a victim might be more important than the long term future of the club.
Who knows??
neither theory sits well with me.
They either really don't understand the science of negotiating when you are not in the position of strength. That is when you are asking someone for help who dont have to give you anything, if they don't want to. When you demand and state this is how it is going to be. Then rarely do you get what you want. Usually you get the opposite.
Or, they fully understand the science of negotiation and not getting what they state they want "long term at the Ricoh" "to buy ACL" "long term at the Higgs" is not what they really want and conflict somehow supports and fuels the legal cases, been perceived as a victim might be more important than the long term future of the club.
Who knows??
neither theory sits well with me.
Last edited:
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
I believe this is not the first time Anderson has ducked arranged meetings or failed to reply to correspondence atleast one I know he set up himself then cancelled on the day. Way out of his depth imo, bit different writing about the running of a football club than actually doing it. My real worry though is this same incompetent will be negotiating where will be playing this time next year, a frightening thought.
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
As important as our Acadamy is even if it went it could be brought back sometime but a ground ? That goes we go, the drop the legals and we talk stipulation I assume still stands.
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Just goes to show what happens when you put somebody who has written a book on football in charge of a football club. I'm sure Enid Blyton wrote about football in the famous five series but stuck to writing and she had far more success than Mr Anderson. To quote Dirty Harry "a man has to know his limitations"
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
The reply from CA seems to me to be closing doors. If they don't get a reply in writing then they wont talk. Someone will have to compromise surely. Whilst the easiest thing would be for CSF to send a non binding email of the facilities that could be available, at some point surely the club has to engender some sort of partnership not serial confrontation
The duty to fund, support, organise, the Academy is with the directors of CCFC not anyone else. It is up to the club not CSF to provide the facilities or make the proposals and they have no agreement anywhere to do that past June 2017. The only decisions CSF have to make is who to let its facilities to and for how much, that does not mean it has to be to CCFC. If CSF have no long term commitment from a party or if a party is putting up barriers to talking let alone partnership then its hardly encouragement to make any deal at all.
CA's statement
- provides CA/CCFC something to use as an excuse
- it provides CSF with opportunity to get rid of CCFC from AHC if they wanted to (and lets face it I doubt they are the easiest client to deal with)
- really doesn't bother Wasps at all, they will carry on with their own plans, in fact may end up with more options because of it. Where will the Wasps Academy be based? - just a thought
- solves and progresses nothing when time is precious
It really is a strange stance to take imo. It is CCFC that would seem to need this, indoor pitches are a scare commodity, CCFC is not awash with funds, yet they are the ones seeming to be awkward, erecting barriers, making demands, intimating where the blame lays. If it is different to that put CSF on the spot by talking, (agreed minutes can be made & signed to back up what has been said/agreed)
Surely the reasonable thing to do was to send CSF details of what is required (tick done that) then respond positively to the private and public invitations to come talk. What I don't understand is why CA agreed to attend and then cancelled late on before giving his excuses ( I could perhaps guess) - why agree in the first place
Now you could see it as the club/CA standing their ground, refusing to be bullied.
You could also see it a football arrogance and another claim of you cant do it without us - got a feeling that's not a big worry to CSF, certainly not a concern for Wasps.
You could see it as CSF/Wasps further damaging CCFC - not having to give that much thought or effort though are they, just sticking to contracts and there is nothing that says they have to deal with CCFC at all, other than the moral argument proffered by the fans who seem more bothered on this subject (but not much) than the club.
Or you could see it as posturing for a purpose - that the decision on the Academy has been taken to close it as Cat2 and this places blame elsewhere.
Or simple incompetence
These are a few questions I would like say Gilbert or Reid or the Trust to find out and make public. Put to CSF and CCFC to compare:
- What was the first date that CCFC confirmed in writing or email that they wanted to stay at the AHC - would be easy to evidence
- when was CCFC first made aware in writing of the proposed changes and then the date that CSF notified CCFC it would not seek a new agreement on the old terms- again easily evidenced
- What specific facilities does the club currently pay for at AHC - again its in the contract and evidenced (does it comply 100% with the EPPP rules though)
- Has there been any agreement with FL or their EPPP auditors that certain facilities are acceptable but do not match the facility rules exactly - we already know the EPPP facility rules don't we
- Does the club use or claim usage of any other facilities at AHC that it does not pay for in order to fulfil the EPPP audit facility requirements
- What are the facility requirement details that have been sent to CSF by CCFC - easily evidenced
- What are the timings of a typical week for CCFC usage. eg when is the indoor pitch used each week, when are the pitches used, are all pitches used at the same time - booking sheets are easily evidenced
- have any alternatives been looked at in order maintain Cat 2 status
- how many meetings to discuss have been arranged then cancelled and why cancelled. Have the three parties (or CCFC in a two of three) ever met together to discuss or otherwise - not difficult to provide dates etc
We do not have time for posturing and frankly silly games. If a Cat 2 Academy is the objective then it is under threat now with the EPPP audit being due. To get the accreditation they will have to show as a minimum the ability to continue, to do that it will mean either positive talks taking place or a plan B, otherwise the Academy is simply not viable. If I were at the FL I would think that the CCFC Academy is currently high risk of failure and would be a priority to audit (and perhaps save £500k).
But then I am making the crucial assumption that the Cat 2 Academy is required by CCFC
The duty to fund, support, organise, the Academy is with the directors of CCFC not anyone else. It is up to the club not CSF to provide the facilities or make the proposals and they have no agreement anywhere to do that past June 2017. The only decisions CSF have to make is who to let its facilities to and for how much, that does not mean it has to be to CCFC. If CSF have no long term commitment from a party or if a party is putting up barriers to talking let alone partnership then its hardly encouragement to make any deal at all.
CA's statement
- provides CA/CCFC something to use as an excuse
- it provides CSF with opportunity to get rid of CCFC from AHC if they wanted to (and lets face it I doubt they are the easiest client to deal with)
- really doesn't bother Wasps at all, they will carry on with their own plans, in fact may end up with more options because of it. Where will the Wasps Academy be based? - just a thought
- solves and progresses nothing when time is precious
It really is a strange stance to take imo. It is CCFC that would seem to need this, indoor pitches are a scare commodity, CCFC is not awash with funds, yet they are the ones seeming to be awkward, erecting barriers, making demands, intimating where the blame lays. If it is different to that put CSF on the spot by talking, (agreed minutes can be made & signed to back up what has been said/agreed)
Surely the reasonable thing to do was to send CSF details of what is required (tick done that) then respond positively to the private and public invitations to come talk. What I don't understand is why CA agreed to attend and then cancelled late on before giving his excuses ( I could perhaps guess) - why agree in the first place
Now you could see it as the club/CA standing their ground, refusing to be bullied.
You could also see it a football arrogance and another claim of you cant do it without us - got a feeling that's not a big worry to CSF, certainly not a concern for Wasps.
You could see it as CSF/Wasps further damaging CCFC - not having to give that much thought or effort though are they, just sticking to contracts and there is nothing that says they have to deal with CCFC at all, other than the moral argument proffered by the fans who seem more bothered on this subject (but not much) than the club.
Or you could see it as posturing for a purpose - that the decision on the Academy has been taken to close it as Cat2 and this places blame elsewhere.
Or simple incompetence
These are a few questions I would like say Gilbert or Reid or the Trust to find out and make public. Put to CSF and CCFC to compare:
- What was the first date that CCFC confirmed in writing or email that they wanted to stay at the AHC - would be easy to evidence
- when was CCFC first made aware in writing of the proposed changes and then the date that CSF notified CCFC it would not seek a new agreement on the old terms- again easily evidenced
- What specific facilities does the club currently pay for at AHC - again its in the contract and evidenced (does it comply 100% with the EPPP rules though)
- Has there been any agreement with FL or their EPPP auditors that certain facilities are acceptable but do not match the facility rules exactly - we already know the EPPP facility rules don't we
- Does the club use or claim usage of any other facilities at AHC that it does not pay for in order to fulfil the EPPP audit facility requirements
- What are the facility requirement details that have been sent to CSF by CCFC - easily evidenced
- What are the timings of a typical week for CCFC usage. eg when is the indoor pitch used each week, when are the pitches used, are all pitches used at the same time - booking sheets are easily evidenced
- have any alternatives been looked at in order maintain Cat 2 status
- how many meetings to discuss have been arranged then cancelled and why cancelled. Have the three parties (or CCFC in a two of three) ever met together to discuss or otherwise - not difficult to provide dates etc
We do not have time for posturing and frankly silly games. If a Cat 2 Academy is the objective then it is under threat now with the EPPP audit being due. To get the accreditation they will have to show as a minimum the ability to continue, to do that it will mean either positive talks taking place or a plan B, otherwise the Academy is simply not viable. If I were at the FL I would think that the CCFC Academy is currently high risk of failure and would be a priority to audit (and perhaps save £500k).
But then I am making the crucial assumption that the Cat 2 Academy is required by CCFC
Last edited:
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Great Post OSB58
This is exactly it.
Obviously there will be gaps in requirements at the first meeting, but these can be minuted and targeted for action.
Even better if these minutes are made available so we can see who is dragging their boots.
IMHO CCFC want rid of the responsibility of the academy and they can't attend any meeting as this will become apparent.
Easier to ask others to provide what they have and CCFC to say it's not enough and then blame others for loosing the academy.
This is exactly it.
Obviously there will be gaps in requirements at the first meeting, but these can be minuted and targeted for action.
Even better if these minutes are made available so we can see who is dragging their boots.
IMHO CCFC want rid of the responsibility of the academy and they can't attend any meeting as this will become apparent.
Easier to ask others to provide what they have and CCFC to say it's not enough and then blame others for loosing the academy.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Easy also for certain other parties to say they are bending over backwards to support the club in retaining the Acadamy but at the same time refusing talks to allow the club to commit long term to the arena.
If say Anderson said he would start these meetings if wasps re commenced talks unconditionally to negotiate a deal would that seem a reasonable compromise?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
So Chris Anderson has the chance to be the bigger person then by attending meetings about the academy instead of cancelling them.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
It's up to CA/CCFC to push this because if they don't others will just move on with their plans without us.
SISU really do need to seriously consider the point of pursuing Legal Action and look at it from CCFC point of view not SISU.
The Ricoh will always be there but the academy will disappear in 12 Months.
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
So if CA said he would start these meetings-
"Which can only be of benefit to us"
If Wasps re-commence talks unconditionally to negotiate a deal to stay at the Arena-
"Again which can only be of benefit to us"
Now that's compromise.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
You could have stopped there. It is the easiest thing, especially as they have already told the trust. That's the way forward for me. Get CSF to put it in writing and call Anderson's bluff.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So if CA said he would start these meetings-
"Which can only be of benefit to us"
If Wasps re-commence talks unconditionally to negotiate a deal to stay at the Arena-
"Again which can only be of benefit to us"
Now that's compromise.
Given we would be paying a commercial rent in both instances it's hardly benefitting just us is it?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
There is no evidence wasps have stopped talks due to legal action but certainly offering olive branches elsewhere is furthering their PR cause - though some like you had the red carpet out the minute they showed in town.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
That pre supposes that CCFC are a priority to Wasps and I do not think they are, certainly not at current net income levels for Wasps in any case . What they are doing is managing perception, just like CA/CCFC.
It hasn't got as far as any sort of agreement or commitment on anything by either site at the Ricoh, I believe CA was exploring the options wasn't he. Certainly there is nothing to suggest as yet a long term agreement at the Ricoh is the preferred option for CCFC directors/owners
At the AHC it isn't a necessity for Wasps to have CCFC there, in some ways they might see it as better not to, but in any case the facilities (with exception of kicking barn) available to CCFC will be via CSF not Wasps.
So hardly much of a lever for CCFC to use or barter with Wasps. So I don't see playing one discussion off against the other as a particularly strong play. CCFC have as yet found no alternative option for Academy or Ground, until they do then at both sites they are very much not in the driving seat
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I've said I would have attended but ultimately it's a no win situation.
What if he attends and again some vague statement comes out that talks have broken down and the background noise of legal action "doesn't help"? Again 90% on here would blame him.
It's a thankless task.
I would attend but would insist all aspects of the meeting are minuted and available for public scrutiny. I suspect Anderson wouldn't be the one to argue against that.
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
I sort of agree, but why will they be dictated to when it doesn't really matter to them,you would
have to imagine it would suit them more if we leave.
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
Well it can't benefit them, as you say they want us gone, our contribution to them
is insignificant, isn't it.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
But their facilities will not be enough and CCFC may need to provide pitches elsewhere, say at Ryton.
The academy rules may also need to be stretched, as they are now, to accommodate the 100% shortcomings.
So when the CA receives the letter he just says it's not enough, it doesn't satisfy the academy rules 100%. The academy closes and it's not CCFC's fault ?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
At least then everyone would know exactly what was needed in addition to Higgs. CSF & Wasps have told the trust, why is so difficult for them to tell CA?
You can keep reiterating this point, but had he bothered to attend the meeting he'd be fully aware.
The only ones who stand to loose out here are CCFC.
That is of course if they actually want to retain the Academy.
The recent actions would indicate they don't.
Anderson has called his own bluff.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
It is in one sense yes I would agree and it would not be binding so in that case having it in writing is worthless.
I suspect the real reason CA wants it in writing is because he will use it as evidence that CSF/Wasps have closed the Academy by not having the exact EPPP facilities available to CCFC. That CSF and Wasps have deprived the club of the future worth of the Academy. Because we all know rules are rules and are set in stone. Just an opinion though
I am not at all sure that CSF/Wasps have told the Trust any more than there are facilities available and they are willing to talk about they can help make Cat 2 work.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Has the club published what they claim are the requirements?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I keep reiterating it because its an incredibly easy thing to get done. The trust have been told, just type up a press release, get CSF and Wasps to confirm it is accurate, open letter in the CT and it can be crossed off the list and we move on to the next obstacle Anderson puts in the way.
If we want to keep an academy we have to overcome the obstacles, not sit back and relax happy in the knowledge we have another stick to beat SISU with.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
CSF were involved in the last audit and know exactly what facilities the club use. The framework for the EPPP with all the requirements in is also freely available online.
Even if we can't continue with all of the facilities we have now CSF can just say you currently have this, you can now have this.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
That's a no then.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I think you're putting the cart before the horse there with a huge dollop of assumption for good measure's.
Task 1. Attend the meeting.
Task 2. Deal with whatever comes of the meeting
You're right on one thing though. If you needed to engineer the disposal of something that you knew would be an unpopular decision when there's the opportunity to do it while playing the victim why would you want minutes from a meeting where you're discussing it to go public. Or why would you even want to attend that meeting in the first place? The danger is that they say yes to everything.
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Because CA cancelled the meeting where this was going to be discussed. Did you not hear about that?
ashbyjan
Well-Known Member
The discussions with CSF and Wasps were reasonably general although they did focus in on areas such as the indoor pitch, outdoor pitch, classrooms etc - it did not go into the minutia of every detail about alternative pitches etc but the general conclusion was that there would be some small shortfalls but if the parties worked together to minimise these and the club looked to plug the gaps from other sources then overall the Academy could probably continue. This insistence from CA that unless he gets it in writing that all the facilities will still be there is quite frankly pointless because he will know as well as anyone that there is going to be some shortfall. Is he using this as an excuse to dodge a meeting and then shut the academy whilst blaming others? Is it the prelude to yet more legals towards other parties, this time for killing the academy? Is it part of building up more "evidence" that everyone in Coventry is working against the club and they will therefore have to move out of the City again?
The academy is the responsibility of CCFC and it is up to them to ensure its survival (assuming that is what they want). Others have said they are willing to meet and cooperate to see what can be worked out and then a joint proposal is put to the FL for assessment. CSF have offered to meet and help, Wasps have offered to meet and help, the Trust have offered to meet and help (in a mediatory capacity) - it seems that the only ones not willing to meet to try and save the academy are those who's responsibility the academy actually is.