Otis
Well-Known Member
Maybe CA will turn up to this one and all the other parties won't.
Many on here then can't complain can they!
Formal Planning Objection from CCFC (27 Viewers)
- Thread starter Orca
- Start date
Many on here then can't complain can they!
Orca
Well-Known Member
CA's point was that it wasn't 'normal commercial terms' and that it had been offered after the email from Oxalis to the Council. His claim that normal commercial terms should include length of contract, break clauses etc. Stuff that can be worked out in a meeting most likely
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
Perhaps they should identify some land in the Coventry area
And build themselves a state of the art "law courts" after all
We're going to be spending more time there than any football
Stadium.
We would get all the car parking and F&B, and it would save
Keep trecking back and fourth to Brum.
And build themselves a state of the art "law courts" after all
We're going to be spending more time there than any football
Stadium.
We would get all the car parking and F&B, and it would save
Keep trecking back and fourth to Brum.
Orca
Well-Known Member
For those interested, and granted, it won't be many, this briefing paper describes some of the things that happen when Councillors go against the advise of the Planning Officer.
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN01030
Some worrying points though:
Councillors can reject when the planners have recommended approve, but normally these are turned over on appeal by the applicant as the Councillor's objections are rarely on planning grounds - costs are awarded to the applicant in most cases.
Once approved, there's no going back unless maladministration is proven by the Local Government Ombudsman. No appeal possible on planning grounds, but if found to be against local development plan, could give rise to a Judicial Review. :arghh:
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN01030
Some worrying points though:
Councillors can reject when the planners have recommended approve, but normally these are turned over on appeal by the applicant as the Councillor's objections are rarely on planning grounds - costs are awarded to the applicant in most cases.
Once approved, there's no going back unless maladministration is proven by the Local Government Ombudsman. No appeal possible on planning grounds, but if found to be against local development plan, could give rise to a Judicial Review. :arghh:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
CA's point was that it wasn't 'normal commercial terms' and that it had been offered after the email from Oxalis to the Council. His claim that normal commercial terms should include length of contract, break clauses etc. Stuff that can be worked out in a meeting most likely
Don't think so. If there is a proposal then send it through. Perhaps Armybike can e mail them and ask what these normal commercial terms are,
I'm sure he'd get a response - it's only CCFC that ignore his little e mails isn't it?
Orca
Well-Known Member
God, that was a pathetic dig for no reason whatsoever. You've got issues
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
You'd expect such an offer to be in writing to cover both parties (granted a meeting may help agree some of the terms). Not the obvious after-thought like it is here.CA's point was that it wasn't 'normal commercial terms' and that it had been offered after the email from Oxalis to the Council. His claim that normal commercial terms should include length of contract, break clauses etc. Stuff that can be worked out in a meeting most likely
Orca
Well-Known Member
Agree it looks like an afterthought, but is also after the meeting CA should have turned up at.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
With Armybike? A poster with many friends on the council. No of course I haven't.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
For those who can't access the link here's a summary :finger:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Like I said. I think we're seeing the real reason CA didn't attend.
Orca
Well-Known Member
No, I meant in general, you've got issues. You clearly revel in playing the pantomime villain on here, but I think it makes you look like a bit of a tool.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No the real reason is that wasps and co could not provide an agreement in writing - something you can't seem to get your head round would be standard practice.
Most if us knew all along it was a stage managed PR communication as such an offer never existed.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
I can't open it, but are you saying it is basically this...
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I fail to see how that comment was in any way villainous. I suggest you review said posters history on here and revise your conclusion.
Nick
Administrator
What about the ones about turning up to meetings? No issue with those digs?
I struggled tooI can't open it, but are you saying it is basically this...
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Again I don't know if it was out there before but the indoor is available through the week for 3hrs per day after the hours of 3-00 pm
To be arranged through CSF not Wasps
stupot07
Well-Known Member
So how can wasps offer it us then? So more mistruths by the agent and wasps. They seem to be making it up as they go along. It kind of suggests why the Anderson wants stuff in writing
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Orca
Well-Known Member
Indoor barn will be Wasps owned, other facilities owned by CSF
Leamington Pete
Well-Known Member
I can see this being a repeat of the Ricoh saga;
"Of course you can train here, we're not throwing you out. It will cost you this much."
Response; "That's too much, we're not paying that" blah blah etc etc...
"Of course you can train here, we're not throwing you out. It will cost you this much."
Response; "That's too much, we're not paying that" blah blah etc etc...
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Oh, they mean the existing not the barn? I can't open the link.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Now I'm confused!CA's point was that it wasn't 'normal commercial terms' and that it had been offered after the email from Oxalis to the Council. His claim that normal commercial terms should include length of contract, break clauses etc. Stuff that can be worked out in a meeting most likely
Something we're desperate to secure to guarantee our viability, yet requesting break clauses.
Nick
Administrator
Haven't they said a pool is going where the existing one is?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Opened it now, I don't see how its not relevant, their build is replacing the academy pitch and thr build directly relates to their agreement that they will have exclusive us of 2 of the remaining 4 pitch's and exclusive use for half the time on the 3rd. That directly impacts on the academy being their and directly decreases potential public use of outside pitches, and with their building replacing the green space/allotments and a football pitch means the green belt land will have less green
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
stupot07
Well-Known Member
That's what the objection said, its just paper talk no discussions or decisions have been had re the existing one behind replaced (yes we know that's a done deal too).
Wasps and agents are on the PR offensive.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Nick
Administrator
Standard isn't it?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
And people from SBT drooling over every word.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
To be fair that should be standard contract basis. I didn't read that he was requesting them, just that the normal things that would be included an offer of contract have not been discussed or put in writing, therefore they had never offered us a normal contracted use or whatever term they used.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Break clauses exist for the benefit of both parties, it's a standard term. Not a specific request for a break clause, but you'd expect to see detail of any break clause wouldn't you.
Again very predicable in how this is playing out, Courts, Appeals and all that comes with it, certainly be a topic for the next 2 years on here!! of the rights and wrongs. I understand the need to raise questions but sooner or later the club need the owners to state a plan other than letters claiming they are being victimized, appeals, courts and judges to get our club in order. They again are falling out with the wrong people and again we the fans will suffer, nothing good will come of this.
I know i will get shot down, but if Sisu spent as much effort in to running the club and building local bridges, than they have done appealing to courts, playing silly buggers, then we would not be in this situation. After all is said and done they have still only got 3 options, talks open and honestly with those who hold the keys, invest in our own facility for the academy in or outside the city boundaries or walk away and let someone else give it a go dealing with all others parties.
I'll get it off certain few, but so be it, Sisu are not trusted or liked with the majority but most importantly with those who could of helped, the direction they have took has very few options for them. Sisu need to admit they are fighting a war they have lost and battles where they are being outgunned, outfought and outmaneuvered with every turn they make.
Lastly and most importantly i will never be convinced that all this fighting is being done on behalf of the club for its future and success, this is purely down to a badly managed investment that they are trying to recoup. The day they fight for the fans new and old will be the day i stand by them and agree with past actions taken.
I know i will get shot down, but if Sisu spent as much effort in to running the club and building local bridges, than they have done appealing to courts, playing silly buggers, then we would not be in this situation. After all is said and done they have still only got 3 options, talks open and honestly with those who hold the keys, invest in our own facility for the academy in or outside the city boundaries or walk away and let someone else give it a go dealing with all others parties.
I'll get it off certain few, but so be it, Sisu are not trusted or liked with the majority but most importantly with those who could of helped, the direction they have took has very few options for them. Sisu need to admit they are fighting a war they have lost and battles where they are being outgunned, outfought and outmaneuvered with every turn they make.
Lastly and most importantly i will never be convinced that all this fighting is being done on behalf of the club for its future and success, this is purely down to a badly managed investment that they are trying to recoup. The day they fight for the fans new and old will be the day i stand by them and agree with past actions taken.
Last edited:
Spot on. I really don't know what commercial lawyers SISU are speaking with but they would of advised them this isn't a basis for an objection. Probably the same numpties who they use for other matters...
And this one will not be over by Monday of next week.
CCFC_Charlie
Well-Known Member
I see that the Telegraph haven't even reported on this yet