Nick
Administrator
I didn't say they did.
It was just asking about everything being the director's fault.
Formal Planning Objection from CCFC (21 Viewers)
- Thread starter Orca
- Start date
I didn't say they did.
It was just asking about everything being the director's fault.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Oh yes I forgot the telegraph.
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I am just a member. I apologise if you didn't know about the demonstration.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
He dictated a reply in writing or he wouldn't attend a meeting to try and gain a future of an academy that is part of the company he works for.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
And where were our owners at the time?
Oh yes that glorious in that town........
We had meetings with our owners warned them about the rumours of Wasps they just laughed it off.
Well they are not laughing now.
Their answer was nobody else would want it.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Isn't that as big a myth as SISU using CCFC as a cash cow? Could be wrong but I'm sure I've read on here several times that ACL has never paid out dividends.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It didn't under the council which is one reason why half purchase was always useless.
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
even I don't think Ryan Haynes is that bad
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
But half is better then we have ended up with.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No it isn't. Not at all. Especially as it would have cost £6 million (and anyway the council would have vetoed it)
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
He was insinuating that it was a cash cow for the council. Glad you've corrected him.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I thought that the council were in on it with a joint plan to take over the YB loan.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
In on devaluing ACL?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
We want something from CSF and Wasps.
We moaned that they were ignoring us and will not talk to us about what we want.
They agreed to attend a meeting with us to discuss it.
We agreed to attend the meeting as well.
Then at the last minute we refuse to go to the meeting and say we will not attend any meetings with them to discuss it, unless they send their proposals in writing first.
Unless I am missing something here. There is no legal obligation that they have to give us anything beyond 2017.
I appreciate it would be great if they did and PR wise it would be much better for them if they did.
However some believe that they are not fussed about us and don't really want us there.
Others say this is a conspiracy to punish SISU or force SISU out.
As it stands at the moment if any of the above is true then they are getting away with it Scot free. To anyone at the moment and rightly so CA (SISU) is been completely unreasonable.
CSF and Wasps are been totally reasonable saying this is a complicated matter that needs face to face discussions first and then you work our the proposals from there.
You can justify CA's actions in whatever way you want. However the simple truth is he won't attend a meeting that the supposed baddies are willing to attend.
He is cutting off his nose to spite his face and once again hurts us in the process.
It's easy for Wasps and CSF now, if they genuinely are not bothered about us. This is one hassle that is going away for them with CA firmly getting the blame, which conviently sorts the PR angle as well
Last edited:
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Has he not dictated anything?
So it isn't a condition that he will only meet with the other parties if they write to him first?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I do believe Grendel says he blames the council 100%.
That might have been on one specific thing though.
Probably the weather
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Hibernation for you soon - match day threads about to start.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
"The Coventry City managing director has insisted the foundation must put in writing how the Academy can continue to operate at the Higgs Centre before he will agree to face to face talks."
Reads like a demand to me. CA seems to believe that CSF are responsible for CCFC Academy, they are not CCFC are and in particular their directors Mr Anderson, Mr Fisher & Mr Venus.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Well let's see
Since SISU took over
New managers 20
New board members 20
New players 100
New Council leaders 3
New Chairman 4-5
Not much has been consistent all the way I don't think oh actually I am with you now
Lead lawyer for SISU and the owner
Of the club?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Oh yes forgot I can't be a fan or attend matches because I don't agree with decision making of SISU.
Better get the golf clubs cleaned.
I totally forgot about that rule
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
The posts on here amaze me. I can't imagine the fans of any other club in our situation would be making posts defending CSF and Wasps and their treatment of CCFC.
They are point blank refusing to respond to the club in writing. There is a reason for that and its not hard to work out what it is.
Nicks post is right. There was no mention of helping the academy stay at Higgs, if anything the opposite saying the two couldn't co-exist, then when it was shining a negative light on Wasps and CSF the spin starts. People are so pre-disposed to blaming SISU for everything all it needs is a seed planting and Wasps and CSF are suddenly blameless.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
To be honest I was struggling to work out who is to blame. The guys saying yes and actually attending a meeting aimed at discussing the future of the academy
Or
The guy who said no one is talking to us. Then agreed to a meeting with the people not talking to him.
Then pulled out of the meeting.
Then set a condition that must be met otherwise he won't meet them.
It was a tough decision over who comes out if this looking at fault. However I think my natural bias and my mistrust of SISU is blinding me, clouding my judgement a bit and surpringly pushing me towards blaming the bloke who didn't turn up and started setting conditions.
Have you ever considered that your judgement might be slightly clouded on this one?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Nick
Administrator
A condition wasn't set after the meeting was it? It was said from the start that CCFC wanted to start off with things in writing, they "said" they sent over a current timetable of what is being used and were asking for information on what from that could still be offered to the academy.
It was said before the Wasps news came out that CCFC were trying to sort out an extension and were emailing and writing but they were being ignored. CSF confirmed they had received written contact from CCFC.
Then the Wasps news came out.
Suddenly, CSF's door opens. They release statements not really saying much or confirming anything, basically just "The door is open".
I'd think it was between couldn't house us or just didn't actually want to (why should they?), they have now spun it so that people like you are reading their "our door is open" and saying that they were trying to help.
The questions you have to ask are, why wouldn't CSF / Wasps put anything in writing? I'd put money on this reason being linked to why CA was so insistent on it? He was being ignored before the Wasps stuff came out wasn't he?
Yes, you mention about judgement being clouded but I think people need to step back and look at the wider picture. You can be sarcastic about how it isn't a hard decision for you to see who is to blame, you also fought for Andy Thorn being a top manager and proud of the council. I wouldn't start bragging about your judgement
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
A condition wasn't set after the meeting was it? It was said from the start that CCFC wanted to start off with things in writing, they "said" they sent over a current timetable of what is being used and were asking for information on what from that could still be offered to the academy.
It was said before the Wasps news came out that CCFC were trying to sort out an extension and were emailing and writing but they were being ignored. CSF confirmed they had received written contact from CCFC.
Then the Wasps news came out.
Suddenly, CSF's door opens. They release statements not really saying much or confirming anything, basically just "The door is open".
I'd think it was between couldn't house us or just didn't actually want to (why should they?), they have now spun it so that people like you are reading their "our door is open" and saying that they were trying to help.
The questions you have to ask are, why wouldn't CSF / Wasps put anything in writing? I'd put money on this reason being linked to why CA was so insistent on it? He was being ignored before the Wasps stuff came out wasn't he?
Yes, you mention about judgement being clouded but I think people need to step back and look at the wider picture. You can be sarcastic about how it isn't a hard decision for you to see who is to blame, you also fought for Andy Thorn being a top manager and proud of the council. I wouldn't start bragging about your judgement
I am not sure if I will get a straight answer to this but I will try anyway.
In your honest opinion should CA have attended that meeting?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
The only thing its clouded by is the fact that I want what is best for my football club over a local council and London rugby club.
You one sided take on things is a prime example of what I was talking about.
Nick
Administrator
I have said I would have gone and recorded it in my pocket to prevent it being spun. Let's face it, he could go there and say 1 thing and something different could be on the front of the Telegraph the next day and who would people believe?
I really don't see the issue with kicking things off with it in writing, there is obviously a reason they didn't want to and it is obvious CA knew why as he called their bluff on it. Not a very helpful bluff granted but how would he have looked if they had just sent something over?
Even before the Wasps stuff came out, CSF were completely ignoring him... All of this "door is open stuff" came out in a rushed statement after the Wasps news broke as people were actually angry at Wasps and CSF
Again, it is up to Wasps and CSF if they have them there. They are well within their rights to say "piss off", it is the fact our fans fall for it so easily time and time again!
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Anderson was talking to CSF, they stopped responding and ignored communications and then the Wasps new broke. At that point, after it had been stated Wasps and CCFC couldn't coexist at Higgs, Anderson asked for details of what would still be available in writing. Its hardly unreasonable behaviour from Anderson. Surely the question should be why the refusal to respond to a simple request.
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
With comments like that CD, you might just earn yourself a badge off Dongo. He's promised me one.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I take it then if I want the best for my football club over a local council and an ex London, Wycombe now Coventry Rugby club.
When the owners of my football club make a stupid decision that I believe hurts my football club.
I should defend their decision because they own the football club and the other party involved in the decision are Wasps?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Nick
Administrator
You don't have to defend anything do you? You are currently defending a random rugby club !
People aren't looking at the bigger picture, Armybike was trying to tell me I was paranoid the other day because I said there was obviously more to it.... Then more news came out.
Why does nobody even wonder why CSF wouldn't put anything down on paper? Why does nobody wonder about the fact CSF were working with Wasps to help move them here?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
No, and nobody has suggested you should. Why you should be upset about is a facility purpose built for the club, that only got planning permission as our academy was to be located there, that was on formally public land that there was a commitment to keep in community use is now being handed over, with greatly reduced facilities for public use, to a rugby club from London so they don't have to spend their own money on a new site.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
50 year lease at 1.3m a year is £65 million. Original loan was what? 21millon?
What would CCFC have got for their money?? Absolutely nothing... 0% ownership 0% revenue access.
That's what I call a cash cow to the council.