Nick
Administrator
It isn't a commitment saying what they can offer is it? The commitment is when contracts are signed
Wasps receive approval to build at Higgs centre (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter AFCCOVENTRY
- Start date
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
You've changed your tune. You were only saying last week that he should have attended.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Then CA insisting on it before meeting is pointless. It means nothing according to you so why wouldn't he attend the meeting?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
They had a pre arranged meeting. I would say that their door is open. It's CA who isn't willing to go through it at this point in time.
Nick
Administrator
It's not a commitment to say we would move in, but if he thinks they can't offer anything they are doing it to try and spin things like they did with the ricoh talks and "legal noise".
They just put in writing what they can offer, it's not a contract saying we will be there for 100 years.
Nick
Administrator
I was talking before the wasps stuff came out.
Surely people can see that pr is at play? Do we really actually think wasps want to help our academy? It's probably to stop people having attitudes like yours when you said to boycott them.
He wants the basics in writing, but nobody thinks it is strange they won't.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Bottom line is it is totally unprofessional to not turn up to a meeting, especially one such as this when it is a meeting between parties that is very relevant and holds great importance to the future of the club you represent.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
That is indeed the bottom line.
If CA has given up on the academy because he didn't get a reply to an email then I don't think it's wrong to ask how committed was he to the academy in the first place.
Orca
Well-Known Member
As pointed out by @armybike in my twitter discussion with Les Reid, even he thinks it could end up in court. The unfortunate thing is there is no planning reason for the application to be rejected. Lots of emotional reasons, yes but in terms of planning law alone, no. Les suggested that material economic reasons and the wider public interest could be used by the Cllrs to stop or at least form the basis for a court challenge.
Sad thing is, in economic terms, one party has offered to invest £7m, the other party, £0. I don't like it, but the best deal for the city of Coventry is the Wasps one. It's shafting CCFC but in my opinion, they've brought it on themselves.
There probably is room for all parties to co-exist and sitting down to throw around a few ideas about how it might work should be the sensible first step in moving towards something formal. Having responded to many competitive tenders in my professional career, if the first interaction you have with the party tendering is the formal notice to respond, you've got precious little chance of getting the outcome that you want. IMO, Wasps are getting what they want because they're prepared to do the ground work prior to the formal stages of anything. A meeting here, a lunch there and a discussion off the record over a couple of pints is the way relationships in business are built. SISU and the CCFC board appear to have not grasped this in any stage of their dealings with the City of Coventry and the parties in play here. "We batter people in court" is not the way to build trust.
This sad state of affairs, which I'm far from happy about, has at its heart a corporation who have buggered it up. Even Joy admitted they wouldn't do it again.
Sad thing is, in economic terms, one party has offered to invest £7m, the other party, £0. I don't like it, but the best deal for the city of Coventry is the Wasps one. It's shafting CCFC but in my opinion, they've brought it on themselves.
There probably is room for all parties to co-exist and sitting down to throw around a few ideas about how it might work should be the sensible first step in moving towards something formal. Having responded to many competitive tenders in my professional career, if the first interaction you have with the party tendering is the formal notice to respond, you've got precious little chance of getting the outcome that you want. IMO, Wasps are getting what they want because they're prepared to do the ground work prior to the formal stages of anything. A meeting here, a lunch there and a discussion off the record over a couple of pints is the way relationships in business are built. SISU and the CCFC board appear to have not grasped this in any stage of their dealings with the City of Coventry and the parties in play here. "We batter people in court" is not the way to build trust.
This sad state of affairs, which I'm far from happy about, has at its heart a corporation who have buggered it up. Even Joy admitted they wouldn't do it again.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Providing it met the conditions laid out
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Not if it is just a PR sideshow to say "hey we tried but they did not want to play ball"
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Have Wasps confirmed they are investing £7 million?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
That's what worries me. There has to be a reason they are refusing to reply to Anderson. Paul Breed from CSF confirmed on 1st June he had received the correspondence from Anderson. 8 weeks on and they still haven't replied.
Personally I think he should have gone but if I try and look at it from his viewpoint I can see why he didn't. He was in talks with CSF, those talks stopped and then days later it turned out they had been doing a deal with Wasps. He then asked for details of what facilities would be available to the club and CSF have, to date, refused to answer.
A meeting could very well help, equally it could be used to spin things.
Given that CSF and Wasps both stated in the CT that they didn't think the academy would be able to stay once Wasps plans were completed and that they only agreed to meet once that was met with negativity and talk of protests I can see it being a concern that its a PR exercise to get the Trust and others onside.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
They were looking for someone else to pay the £7m weren't they?
Nick
Administrator
Pretty much, it's to stop any negativity towards them. Look how well it has worked on here....
Tony's thread is a good example.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The problem is people on here have frequently said the only reason talks have broken down are due to legal action pending which needs to be dropped. This came from one statement from a Wasps employee at the meeting. Anderson said at the meeting the same representative said it was not an issue
Many on here take as gospel what the Wasps representative said so they will again. Which means there probably is no offer at all and never will be but it can easily be claimed so after the event
Many on here take as gospel what the Wasps representative said so they will again. Which means there probably is no offer at all and never will be but it can easily be claimed so after the event
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Thats what I thought - and if that is not forthcoming I am sure the Council pool development will be able to assist.........
Orca
Well-Known Member
Knowing you Grendel, you're trying to pick holes in what I said.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/new-wasps-rfc-training-centre-10380071
Armstrong:“That’s probably going to be a £7m investment. We are looking at ways of financing that through sponsorship.” So, before you say "it's not Wasps then it's sponsorship", I don't care and it's not the point as you damn well know.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So if they don't finance it through sponsorship - who pays?
Nick
Administrator
It's so easy, " sisus fault".
They led the trust up the path again. The minute they get some negative feeling the trust get a meeting and come out telling everybody the world is saved.
Orca
Well-Known Member
I don't know, I don't care and I don't know why it's relevant. The article I just linked you to does say they have a £12.3m cash balance, but I really don't care past that.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
One thing that to some degree surprises me is the lack of legal action over something that is apparently so vital. That is the usual recourse of the CCFC owners. Perhaps it is just a matter of time?. Perhaps that is the reason no one is talking?. Not sure who or on what grounds SISU or CCFC could sue mind? Not sure there is any legal obligation to offer CCFC a new deal on the cessation of the old user agreement. So long as CSF provide facilities of adequate standard until June 2017 they have not I would guess broken the contract
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So if the Council say incorporated it into their overall development project that would mean they haven't spent anything more than CCFC doesn't it?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
And CA has just willingly handed it to them on a plate. Who does he work for again?
Orca
Well-Known Member
I think that's unlikely, but given your bias, I'm sure it's the first and only thing that came to mind for you.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Which shows the folly of CCFC not committing to a longer term deal.
They got taken to the cleaners again.
This is repeated serial failure to care for the club.
SISU are not suitable guardians of the club.
Nick
Administrator
Which longer deal? Have csf said they would have committed to ccfc long term?
Orca
Well-Known Member
Finally. The club have stepped up and lodged a formal planning objection. http://www.ccfc.co.uk/documents/reference-number144-3213645.pdf
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Not recently, when they moved back after being told to by the FA.
RegTheDonk
Well-Known Member
So what happens if, for example, Jones is brilliant, scores regularly, and terrorises the opposition defence. He's a star and consequently helps shoot us up to the top of the league and we get regular gates over 20,000. Way above what we are led to believe as break even point.
Then someone comes in and offers us £1M for Jones...and SISU cash in. Whos fault would that be?
Then someone comes in and offers us £1M for Jones...and SISU cash in. Whos fault would that be?
Looks like the article linked in this thread could be the Preamble.
RegTheDonk
Well-Known Member
Perhaps the Observer need to step up and liaise with the various supporters clubs like the CT did when we were in Northampton and get some protest/rally organised...thousands outside the council house on Thursday would be nice.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Of someone else's money... Not theirs.
The myth that Wasps invest in the City is bollocks.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't be surprised if the main sponsors are the City of Rugby initiative. £7 million is a huge figure. They can't even get a sponsor for the stadium.