Formal Planning Objection from CCFC (3 Viewers)

Nick

Administrator
It's not CSF/Wasps PR though, it's CCFC's and it's out there the same time as the planning objection. It's akin to filling for divorce while renewing your wedding vowels at the same time. It's a nonsense, one is counter intuitive to the other.
Again, the article that wasps and csf have tried to get you to obsess over still doesn't state anything about moving. It says about having the first team and academy together, which ca has said recently.

You are making out they are writing and posting statements the same day saying they want to stay long term and they are moving away. Which they aren't.
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Yes, freeing up Ryton , so they can sell it ... Its all about what Sisu can gain , not the club !!
Its already mortgaged, and who would you sell it to? It would probably never get planning permission for houses. How much do you think sisu would gain by selling it?



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
I guess ultimately both parties wanted the contract for that period. I don't know about extention conversations, sorry.
at the time our current agreement was signed, Coventry Sports Foundation and the Higgs Trust (then the owner of the facility) were not interested in a long-term lease or even making a rolling 12-month agreement part of our contract.
 

Bruce the Boot

Well-Known Member
Its already mortgaged, and who would you sell it to? It would probably never get planning permission for houses. How much do you think sisu would gain by selling it?



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


Land has always got a value .
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Again, the article that wasps and csf have tried to get you to obsess over still doesn't state anything about moving. It says about having the first team and academy together, which ca has said recently.

You are making out they are writing and posting statements the same day saying they want to stay long term and they are moving away. Which they aren't.

It's not an article. It's a five point mission statement that appears on the clubs site.

You can see the difference I'm sure
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
I don't buy into this idea that as the contact has an end date everyone was expecting us to leave. That's not how things work.
 

Nick

Administrator
It's not an article. It's a five point mission statement that appears on the clubs site.

You can see the difference I'm sure
Yes, and it still doesn't say anything about moving away or giving notice.

Still, it dangled a carrot to lead you away from being annoyed at wasps.
 

Nick

Administrator
I don't buy into this idea that as the contact has an end date everyone was expecting us to leave. That's not how things work.
Of course it doesn't work like that.

It's just people justifying the academy being kicked out.
 

Bruce the Boot

Well-Known Member
I'm sure most peoples. He hardly posted like he wanted to sort things out.

Very childish with some of the stuff.

Still, he is the enemy of sisu so people will love him.


He is just a bloke , protecting his interests. Answer me this , would you enter into a deal with Sisu?
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Land has always got a value .
Yes, but is it more than the mortgage? how much more? How much in the context of putting and losing c£40m in the club? It would hardly be a cash cow for them would it?

Pretty sure in the account the asset value of ryton is pretty smallm

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 

Nick

Administrator
He is just a bloke , protecting his interests. Answer me this , would you enter into a deal with Sisu?
Yes, threatening normal fans with legal action is protecting his interests.

Are you related to him or anything? Or just somebody who probably thinks joe Elliott is a hero as well?

It would depend on the deal wouldn't it, and the deal would be with ccfc not sisu.

I'd go as far to say that I wouldn't trust pwkh as far as I could throw him. Very sly bloke.
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
CSF need a long term tenant, clearly that is the business model & that was the basis for the original build of Higgs.
We (Ccfc) wouldn't commit so why we do expect CSF to hang about & play sisu games of bluff/counter bluff. We actually left once before & that must have have a left huge hole in the Higgs budget as I suspect the tenancy is key to income.
CSF have a moody tenant with a terrible reputation, sisu do not act with integrity, they are a ruthless business, nothing illegal but certainly not an ideal partner/tenant. CSF did what I would do, rather than play time consuming games with a moody tenant they simply found a new tenant.
If I had a house and the tenant wasn't prepared to commit to another tenancy I would find a.n.other ......I wouldn't get involved in trading.
During their time in Coventry if sisu had acted with integrity & you could trust their handshake I suspect the Higgs 'problem' wouldn't have arisen. Unfortunately that isn't the case & other organisations are going to look at events around the Ricoh, non paying of rent, litigation etc & think I'd rather not do business.....I can't blame them.
The real tradegy is to the young footballers of Coventry, they are the collateral damage & that could have devastating effects on our future. If i had a lad who was good & I had choice of Coventry, Birmingham WBA, Leicester I know where I wouldn't choose. Maybe that is already happening.
The solution is for us to do the right thing & re-build our reputation. To once again become an organisation that others trust & will do business with. Its still possible but not unless the current incumbents of our club change style, communication & working manner. There have recent personnel & each seems brings a new mantra/style, Waggot clearly had the best skills of negotiation, diplomacy & tact. Would the Higgs situation be where it was if Waggot was still here .... I suspect not. Waggot was a guy who met others for an informal beer and built relationships, I don't remember him making threats/aggressive statements via the press. Waggot had a community background & appeared to understand the need to build working relationships with the community ....... I think the club miss his skills & outlook.
The 'blame game' is often futile & achieves very little but as the majority of this thread is trying to just that my suggestion is we look in the mirror............
Fingers crossed the children learn to play nicely in the future & work together for the community of Coventry but I won't be holding my breath .......does Waggott have a brother????

The whole situation summed up perfectly
 

Bruce the Boot

Well-Known Member
Yes, threatening normal fans with legal action is protecting his interests.

.

Oh have nt Sisu threatened the fans aswell ? I asked about a deal with Sisu , not the club .
 

theferret

Well-Known Member
He is just a bloke , protecting his interests. Answer me this , would you enter into a deal with Sisu?

Yep, in the right circumstances. I would certainly enter into a deal with CCFC if the deal at hand was the long term security of the academy.

Plenty have entered deals with SISU/CCFC in recent years. JustSport, TicketMaster, Allsop & Allsop amongst others.

I believe PWKH is spiteful and vindictive. That is my opinion, and I'm entitled to it, but nothing about it is factual. I doubt he'd have a very high opinion about me either, but I wouldn't get all precious about it and start contacting lawyers.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Yes, and it still doesn't say anything about moving away or giving notice.

Still, it dangled a carrot to lead you away from being annoyed at wasps.

It contradicts the planning objection is the point. I want the planning objection to have every chance of succeeding. It's nothing to do with anything Wasps. It's you who brought them into the argument not me. All you've done is expose yourself as someone who will fall over themselves so quickly to defend those running the club that you don't actually stop and think if the point is valid or not, which it is. Contradictions don't help the objection especially given what the majority of the objection is based on. All you're doing with your defend at any cost approach is playing into the hands of those who the planning objection is against.

Hopefully someone from the club is reading this, can see the obvious duality of the statements and corrects it for the benefit of the academy. Mixed signals do nothing to help the situation that the academy is in or the objection.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Ah PWKH, the man that went around tying balloons to the cars of CCFC officials, the man who grossly misrepresented the breakdown in the relationship of the club in respect of the 'unpaid bills' at the AHC, the man who threatened supporters with legal action, the man who (yes, out of spite) made long term ownership/tenureship at Higgs pretty much impossible. Odious individual.

It was one balloon and it wasn't an actual balloon as it was deflated

So I'm told.
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
Yep, in the right circumstances. I would certainly enter into a deal with CCFC if the deal at hand was the long term security of the academy.

Plenty have entered deals with SISU/CCFC in recent years. JustSport, TicketMaster, Allsop & Allsop amongst others.

I believe PWKH is spiteful and vindictive. That is my opinion, and I'm entitled to it, but nothing about it is factual. I doubt he'd have a very high opinion about me either, but I wouldn't get all precious about it and start contacting lawyers.

A degree of truth & common sense in all that.

My take on PWKH/Higgs is that SISU's actions screwed the charity out of a lot of money they were expecting and as a result Higgs Charity withdrew all support from CCFC (which had been considerable, remember the Higg Charity paid for the Higgs Centre). Whether it is spiteful or not is another matter, but SISU's track record for poisoning their business relationships is surely legendary.
 
Last edited:

Nick

Administrator
It contradicts the planning objection is the point. I want the planning objection to have every chance of succeeding. It's nothing to do with anything Wasps. It's you who brought them into the argument not me. All you've done is expose yourself as someone who will fall over themselves so quickly to defend those running the club that you don't actually stop and think if the point is valid or not, which it is. Contradictions don't help the objection especially given what the majority of the objection is based on. All you're doing with your defend at any cost approach is playing into the hands of those who the planning objection is against.

Hopefully someone from the club is reading this, can see the obvious duality of the statements and corrects it for the benefit of the academy. Mixed signals do nothing to help the situation that the academy is in or the objection.



How does it contradict? How is it a mixed signal? They said their vision was to gave academy and first team together, ca had offered to move the first team there also.

I gave you the link to when you were angry with wasps. Then it suddenly changed back when they put out a statement. They used that as a reason for kicking them out and people are gargling it. Playing into the hands of wasps? Of course, you aren't doing that at all are you?


Defend at any cost? Ironic really considering your massive u turn after they did a bit of pr and turned the blame away from themselves.

At the start of the thread i said I'd doubt that the letter would make much difference.
 
Last edited:

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
My take on PWKH/Higgs is that SISU's actions screwed the charity out of a lot of money they were expecting and as a result Higgs Charity withdrew all support from CCFC (which had been considerable, remember the Higg Charit paid for the ). Whether it is spiteful or not is another matter, but SISU's track record for poisoning their business relationships is surely legendary.
My take is that Higgs attitude towards the football club, indeed the whole sporting side of the charity, changed considerably when Derek Higgs died unexpectedly.
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
My take is that Higgs attitude towards the football club, indeed the whole sporting side of the charity, changed considerably when Derek Higgs died unexpectedly.
Yeah, he had a degree of control when alive, half this shit would never have happened if he hadn't died.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
My take is that Higgs attitude towards the football club, indeed the whole sporting side of the charity, changed considerably when Derek Higgs died unexpectedly.

Spot on. Council Dart should go and ask some pre sisu directors regarding Higgs.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
How does it contradict? How is it a mixed signal? They said their vision was to gave academy and first team together, ca had offered to move the first team there also.

I gave you the link to when you were angry with wasps. Then it suddenly changed back when they put out a statement. They used that as a reason for kicking them out and people are gargling it. Playing into the hands of wasps? Of course, you aren't doing that at all are you?


Defend at any cost? Ironic really considering your massive u turn after they did a bit of pr and turned the blame away from themselves.

At the start of the thread i said I'd doubt that the letter would make much difference.

Ot actually says this

"CCFC is moving towards the fully integrated football model whereby there is no longer a silo model in which Academy and the first team group rarely work together.

Dismantling the silos both promotes the acceleration of young players’ development and is aspirational for the younger players – they work with the first team group which includes former Academy players – therefore encouraging others to follow the very same pathway.

The vision incorporates a first team-Academy training facility – a facility that is designed and built to facilitate and future proof a Category One status. Having the first team and Academy working on the same site inspires.

CCFC is one of very few clubs in League One that has Category Two status Academy.

The Academy is a cornerstone of the club, has and continues to be a source of first team talent.

The Academy costs in excess of £1.2m per year – of which £500K is a grant. The rest of the funding comes from club income.

The Academy is not a profit centre. The value to the club is generating and cultivating talent locally by developing players who understand what the club means to supporters and whose ambition is to play in the CCFC first team.

Inevitably – and this is true of all but a handful of clubs at the top of the Premier League – there will be occasions when we lose players. Callum Wilson is a classic example. He was outstanding for us in the 13/14 season, but that attracted interest from other clubs. On a personal level, Callum was offered a life-changing deal and could well be playing in the Premier League next season.

The objective then becomes ensuring that the club maximises the return on its long term investment – given the Academy’s input over what can be a eight or nine year period."

This part being the contradiction

"The vision incorporates a first team-Academy training facility – a facility that is designed and built to facilitate and future proof a Category One status."

It talks about Cat 1, which the AEHC isn't. It talks about designing and building. Where? Not at the AEHC that's for sure. The statement actually not only seems to make a point of not mentioning the AEHC it also doesn't talk about partnership with others. That's a contradiction.

That needs addressing and the only companies PR that has anything to do with is CCFC's. You keep bringing Wasps into it though. That's bound to make the objection more believable.
 

RegTheDonk

Well-Known Member
The Academy costs in excess of £1.2m per year – of which £500K is a grant. The rest of the funding comes from club income.
Why is it so important to SISU - its costing the club £700K a year? I assume it's in the hope we can develop a nugget we can sell for over £700K.
 

Nick

Administrator
Ot actually says this

"CCFC is moving towards the fully integrated football model whereby there is no longer a silo model in which Academy and the first team group rarely work together.

Dismantling the silos both promotes the acceleration of young players’ development and is aspirational for the younger players – they work with the first team group which includes former Academy players – therefore encouraging others to follow the very same pathway.

The vision incorporates a first team-Academy training facility – a facility that is designed and built to facilitate and future proof a Category One status. Having the first team and Academy working on the same site inspires.

CCFC is one of very few clubs in League One that has Category Two status Academy.

The Academy is a cornerstone of the club, has and continues to be a source of first team talent.

The Academy costs in excess of £1.2m per year – of which £500K is a grant. The rest of the funding comes from club income.

The Academy is not a profit centre. The value to the club is generating and cultivating talent locally by developing players who understand what the club means to supporters and whose ambition is to play in the CCFC first team.

Inevitably – and this is true of all but a handful of clubs at the top of the Premier League – there will be occasions when we lose players. Callum Wilson is a classic example. He was outstanding for us in the 13/14 season, but that attracted interest from other clubs. On a personal level, Callum was offered a life-changing deal and could well be playing in the Premier League next season.

The objective then becomes ensuring that the club maximises the return on its long term investment – given the Academy’s input over what can be a eight or nine year period."

This part being the contradiction

"The vision incorporates a first team-Academy training facility – a facility that is designed and built to facilitate and future proof a Category One status."

It talks about Cat 1, which the AEHC isn't. It talks about designing and building. Where? Not at the AEHC that's for sure. The statement actually not only seems to make a point of not mentioning the AEHC it also doesn't talk about partnership with others. That's a contradiction.

That needs addressing and the only companies PR that has anything to do with is CCFC's. You keep bringing Wasps into it though. That's bound to make the objection more believable.

It doesn't actually say not the higgs does it? The same as it doesn't say "we are moving" like people keep going on about.

A contradiction isn't not mentioning something, a contradiction would be saying on it that they never wanted to be at the higgs ever again.

That has been used as ccfc giving notice of some sort, and it's far from it. It's actually very vague which I assume it was meant to be as it calls it a vision and not very committed.
 

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
I don't buy into this idea that as the contact has an end date everyone was expecting us to leave. That's not how things work.
If I had a contract with an end date, and it was somewhere I really needed to stay, I'd make sure I'd try my hardest to keep relationships good. Obviously I'm not a great businessman so maybe the correct approach is to constantly annoy all parties, time will tell.

In the footballing world contracts get run down all the time, you'd think we'd be aware to the possibility of it happening.

Now all of this is semantics really in my opinion, as I don't believe our owners want to keep the current Academy. It's a good distraction though.
 

SkyBlueZack

Well-Known Member
Some right strange folk about. Supporting a council, a charity and franchise rugby club over their own football club. Just to get one up on SISU. Well, give it a couple of years and you can all throw a street party in honour of ridding SISU from the football club. Oh and the football club from the City. You can all dance and rejoice and pat each other on the back. Invite your heroes Ann Lucas, PWKH and Kevin Maton. Picking fault with your own clubs statement rather than picking up fault with a franchise rugby club. It's shocking and appalling. I don't buy this superfan if you go to every game or no games shit. What I think though is you stand up for your club no matter what, shame others don't agree.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top