MP asks for CCFC intervention (34 Viewers)

[oldskyblue58]

Looks like we might be able to rule out one potential option to move to that's has been rumoured before

http://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk...-county-s-fa-move-to-higham-ferrers-1-7421089

 

---

[Deleted member 5849]

Looks like we can rule out one potential option to move to that's has been rumoured before

http://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk...-county-s-fa-move-to-higham-ferrers-1-7421089

That's been on the cards for all eternity. As long as our promised new stadium, in fact!

 

[chiefdave]

A charity that spend 30K of its money on lawyers on a single agreement has either really shitty lawyers or a poorly organised business.

You would have thought it would be less with family rates.

 

[chiefdave]

The freehold has never been for sale.

What sort of state do you expect the stadium to be in when the 250 year lease expires?

 

[Bruce the Boot]

Would a new owner want to take on a 20 year agreement to rent somebody else's stadium?

Thats is a very interesting point , If we did have a 20 yr plan in place at least it would give them something to work with .

 

[Nick]

Thats is a very interesting point , If we did have a 20 yr plan in place at least it would give them something to work with .

Or something they are stuck with.

 

[Bruce the Boot]

Or something they are stuck with.

Depends who ( if) the interested party was , Somebody mega rich , possibly no , but to a consortium who love the club........ a start

 

[Nick]

Depends who ( if) the interested party was , Somebody mega rich , possibly no , but to a consortium who love the club........ a start

Yeah, depends on the agreement though doesn't it

 

[Bruce the Boot]

It s all hypothetical obviously , I d love somebody to come in and give us some hope back , I really cant see things being any worse than it is now . I personally dont want Sisu to make any long term agreements , I want them gone .

 

[dongonzalos]

So wasps say "£10 million a year" and the FL say take it or leave it - ok and drop any court actions involving other unrelated parties?

There is zero chance the Fl will force the club to take any deal from a third party.

That didn't answer my question

 

[dongonzalos]

Rubbish an organisation that makes you proud is 100% supportive of.

Unlike you I can think the council did the right thing in one area and criticise them in others.

 

[dongonzalos]

Brighton took 10 years to build one and were allowed to move.

So the FL let them leave Brighton for ten years, whilst their new stadium was built?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Unlike you I can think the council did the right thing in one area and criticise them in others.

Well I for one am encouraged by you getting on the board with the 'everyone's a wanker' message

 

[Moff]

always amuses me when when everyone beats Italia with the "car park stick" when
There's not a poster on here who wouldn't do exactly the same

Its more of a long standing joke between me and Italia, we don't always agree but certainly respect each others views. He knows its not serious as I have praised his entrepreneurship on this matter on several occasions. He is a wily old fox.

 

[stupot07]

As for a 20 year deal - first I've heard this mentioned? If true it would be a great deal depending on the type of deal it was? A sub lease of sorts that was assignable? That would give the club an 'asset' to move on with the football club and a route for SISU to exit.

We previously had 50 year 23 day per annum lease. That was not an 'asset' it was great big fat liability on thr balance sheet.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Grendel]

That didn't answer my question

Well it does. I can't see any way the FL will stand in the way of another move out of the city. I wouldn't be surprised if an alternative is in place as a contingency already.

 

[Paxman II]

Would a new owner want to take on a 20 year agreement to rent somebody else's stadium?

There are many caveats to a lease agreement and types of lease. I've had businesses that were leasehold and that certainly becomes an asset in your negotiations when you re assign that lease which Stupot does not seem to agree with?
As the freehold is not held by WASP any lease agreement would have to involve the council as owners of the bricks and mortar as it were. But I think we are getting ahead of ourselves on this one as I doubt it very likely.

 

[stupot07]

There are many caveats to a lease agreement and types of lease. I've had businesses that were leasehold and that certainly becomes an asset in your negotiations when you re assign that lease which Stupot does not seem to agree with?
As the freehold is not held by WASP any lease agreement would have to involve the council as owners of the bricks and mortar as it were. But I think we are getting ahead of ourselves on this one as I doubt it very likely.

So the £1.3m pa, 23-26 days per annum use of the bowl no access to additonal/matchday revenues, 50 year rental agreement with no breakout clause was an asset?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Its more of a long standing joke between me and Italia, we don't always agree but certainly respect each others views. He knows its not serious as I have praised his entrepreneurship on this matter on several occasions. He is a wily old fox.

Now I *know* you're taking the piss.

 

[chiefdave]

So the FL let them leave Brighton for ten years, whilst their new stadium was built?

Not quite:
The Goldstone Ground was sold by the board in 1997 to property developers, with no alternative ground lined up and without consulting the fans. A ground share with Portsmouth never materialised and they eventually arranged a ground-share with Gillingham over 70 miles away.
They moved back to Brighton in 1997, at the Withdean on a temporary basis despite much opposition from local residents.
Wasn't until 2008 that they built their new ground.

 

[dongonzalos]

Council - should be sod all to do with them at this stage. Other than planning permission.
They should if they can help the football club in anyway they can, if they are not getting sued by the football club. However I understand them taking a step back and not getting involved with the club whilst getting sued. However they actually shouldn't really be in a position to help where Wasps are concerned anyway.

Football league - allowed a temporary move whilst we built our own stadium we had to show them our viable plans and proof we were genuine that we were going to get back to Coventry ASAP.
We did nothing tangible for a year and came back temporarily whilst still building our own stadium. We again have done nothing tangible towards building a new stadium.
I would assume the football league would not allow us to move again unless they saw some tangible proof of the building of a new stadium. I appreciate they can't force us to sign a new deal at the Ricoh however they can tell us we can't move 30 odd miles out of the city unless we provide some serious proof including funding for the project.

SISU - the legal action in most people's opinion is a deadend. However I guess whilst the council and wasps ask for it to be dropped. SISU probably see some value in it.
I can't see them winning it so I can't see why they don't offer it up at the point of signing a deal on both the Ricoh and the Academy.
I also struggle to see why they continue with the club if the legal action is the only way of recouping their money. Can this not be done once they relinquish ownership of the club?
Also if they actually can't afford a new stadium what is the point of continuing with the club and moving it somewhere playing Infront of crowds of 1000-2000?

Wasps - why don't they get to the point of signing a deal with CCFC then at the point of signing request the concept of JR2 is dropped. Unless they really think SISU are that dangerous they want nothing to do with SISU. If so come out and say it.
Fans - I think a move anymore than 10 miles out of the city, will lead to most not going unfortunately

 

[dongonzalos]

Not quite:
The Goldstone Ground was sold by the board in 1997 to property developers, with no alternative ground lined up and without consulting the fans. A ground share with Portsmouth never materialised and they eventually arranged a ground-share with Gillingham over 70 miles away.
They moved back to Brighton in 1997, at the Withdean on a temporary basis despite much opposition from local residents.
Wasn't until 2008 that they built their new ground.

Ah right so they stayed in Brighton for the ten years whilst their ground was built.
Nothing like our Northampton scenario

 

[Grendel]

Ah right so they stayed in Brighton for the ten years whilst their ground was built.
Nothing like our Northampton scenario

It's a precedent for move number 2. The league waived a 35 mile rule and the club had no plan at all in place where to go next. They got the Withdean up and running with league approval. I guess we can try the Butts after two years but if that's rejected where else can we go?

No land available and no deal in the city.

We will definitely be allowed to move - I've 100% certainty about that.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Ah right so they stayed in Brighton for the ten years whilst their ground was built.
Nothing like our Northampton scenario

Disagree.

Sub Gillingham for Northampton, and sub the Withdean for the Butts and you have a pretty similar situation.

With the elephant in the room being that the Butts appears to have been blocked by CCC, after the Football League had a look and were happy with it.

That's the argument that'll see us bog off. We can spend an eternity arguing the 'truth' of that or otherwise but... that's the argument!

 

[Moff]

Now I *know* you're taking the piss.

More often than not

Me and Italia are so entrenched in opposite views, we get on!

 

[Moff]

Disagree.

Sub Gillingham for Northampton, and sub the Withdean for the Butts and you have a pretty similar situation.

With the elephant in the room being that the Butts appears to have been blocked by CCC, after the Football League had a look and were happy with it.

That's the argument that'll see us bog off. We can spend an eternity arguing the 'truth' of that or otherwise but... that's the argument!

Stop with the rationality, people just want frothy mouthed ranting on this site, not clear and concise clarity.

Away with you!

 

[Nick]

Disagree.

Sub Gillingham for Northampton, and sub the Withdean for the Butts and you have a pretty similar situation.

With the elephant in the room being that the Butts appears to have been blocked by CCC, after the Football League had a look and were happy with it.

That's the argument that'll see us bog off. We can spend an eternity arguing the 'truth' of that or otherwise but... that's the argument!

Exactly, I wouldn't be surprised if the council walked right into it by trying to block it..

 

[dongonzalos]

Disagree.

Sub Gillingham for Northampton, and sub the Withdean for the Butts and you have a pretty similar situation.

With the elephant in the room being that the Butts appears to have been blocked by CCC, after the Football League had a look and were happy with it.

That's the argument that'll see us bog off. We can spend an eternity arguing the 'truth' of that or otherwise but... that's the argument!

Problem is it doesn't hold up. The council said they would look at planning permission like any other planning job.
The owner of lease said no to CCFC coming.
I appreciate you can read behind the lines but the council have not blocked the butts.
We all take it for granted they have but factually they haven't.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Problem is it doesn't hold up. The council said they would look at planning permission like any other planning job.
The owner of lease said no to CCFC coming.
I appreciate you can read behind the lines but the council have not blocked the butts.
We all take it for granted they have but factually they haven't.

Again, you're arguing over the 'truth' and in so doing, missing the point entirely.

There is enough evidence to present the case I've outlined. If you were the football league, would you take the side of your member... or some outside influences? Which would you choose *anyway* with *zero* argument to be made? Which would you choose when there most certainly *is* an argument to be made?

You don't have to believe it, I don't have to believe it. We are irrelevant. What's relevant is that it's there.

 

[Ian1779]

Problem is it doesn't hold up. The council said they would look at planning permission like any other planning job.
The owner of lease said no to CCFC coming.
I appreciate you can read behind the lines but the council have not blocked the butts.
We all take it for granted they have but factually they haven't.

The owner of said lease had a vested interest in rugby and its promotion in the city.

It's just another thing to add to the list of attempts to punish the club - which they will use in any dialogue with FL.

 

[Nick]

The owner of said lease had a vested interest in rugby and its promotion in the city.

It's just another thing to add to the list of attempts to punish the club - which they will use in any dialogue with FL.

Vested interest = funding it...

 

[dongonzalos]

The owner of said lease had a vested interest in rugby and its promotion in the city.

It's just another thing to add to the list of attempts to punish the club - which they will use in any dialogue with FL.

I know what you are saying but they will need to deal with facts

 

[Nick]

I know what you are saying but they will need to deal with facts

yes, and it's fact they tried to stop it and all parties are linked..

 

[Ian1779]

I know what you are saying but they will need to deal with facts

Then you've answered your own question.

Have SISU attempted to look at Butts as an option? Yes they have.

Did the leaseholder and/or others at the council look at ways to block the usage of the site by a football club? Yes they did.

You can argue over whether SISU were genuine and would have followed through but the evidence is now there that can be used by them if needed.

 

[duffer]

Problem is it doesn't hold up. The council said they would look at planning permission like any other planning job.
The owner of lease said no to CCFC coming.
I appreciate you can read behind the lines but the council have not blocked the butts.
We all take it for granted they have but factually they haven't.

Problem is, that it does hold up. It's a matter of public record...

http://coventryobserver.co.uk/news/...id-block-coventry-city-f-c-butts-groundshare/

... The Council would however wish to raise one issue following recent items in the local press suggesting that professional football was coming to the Butts Arena. I suspect that this is not the case however the Council naturally wants to protect its position as well as the Rugby Club.

It is suggested that we look to add a new clause 12 to the Licence which make a variation or agreement/acknowledgement between the parties that the reference within clause 13.1 of the lease to “any other leisure and sporting activities and uses” shall specifically exclude professional association football or training associated therewith.

Julie Sprayson – Place Team
Resources Directorate – Legal Services