More news on Ryton (13 Viewers)

[Skyblueweeman]

I told you all Mowbray had his hands tied. I also told you all CA was a decent man but wasn't being backed by SISU. I told you all Mowbray and Venus had a interview at RUFC. There's a hell of a lot of lies flying around, and none of them are coming from me!

To be fair, it was bawtryneal who said they had the interview with RUFC, you just backed him up.

And I agree with your comment about CA. I met him week before last and had a 15 minute chat with him. Nice bloke.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

---

[robbiekeane]

Sometimes I just give up responding because the amount of effort it takes to get all of my points across about why people are talking rubbish, just isn't worth it on a phone

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Sometimes I just give up responding because the amount of effort it takes to get all of my points across about why people are talking rubbish, just isn't worth it on a phone

Ah Bless! We're all talking rubbish while the knight in shining armour(robbiekeane) is the "Dogs Bollocks"

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

To be fair, it was bawtryneal who had the interview with RUFC, you just backed him up.

And I agree with your comment about CA. I met him week before last and had a 15 minute chat with him. Nice bloke.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Wrong SBWM. Bawtryneal is RUFC's Kit Sponsor. Mowbray and Venus both had interviews there.

 

[Calista]

This is the Ryton thread, right?!

I did a bit of digging on the involvement of Sport England in Planning Applications (https://www.sportengland.org/facili...development-management/planning-applications/).

There are lots of links and policy documents, but to try and summarise, an application which resulted in the loss of sports pitches would oblige the Local Planning Authority (in this case Rugby Borough Council) to consult Sport England. A condition of any permission would almost certainly be to provide replacement pitches in “a suitable location”. On top of that, one of the questions would be “Does the application also include the appropriate replacement of all necessary ancillary provision?” – so on that basis, Sport England might ask for ALL the facilities to be properly replaced as a condition of approval. Actually, there’s not a huge amount at Ryton is there? In any case, Sport England are only a consultee, and the planners would have other things to take into account too.

The recent draft Local Plan sets the context for future planning applications. For the Ryton site, it only says there must be “adequate replacement of pitch provision”. So if anyone wants to try and make sure that the training centre has to be fully replaced, they could submit comments on the Rugby Borough Local Plan, asking that the wording be toughened up - along the lines of “Implementation of site allocation DS3.9 can only occur when adequate replacement of all pitches and ancillary facilities is made …”.

On the other hand, if you think that the only way to get rid of SISU is for them to make a killing on Ryton first, you might just want the development to go ahead with as few strings attached as possible. All this cloak-and-dagger stuff from the club makes it hard to know what’s for the best.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

Wrong SBWM. Bawtryneal is RUFC's Kit Sponsor. Mowbray and Venus both had interviews there.

Sorry, I meant it was bawtryneal who said they had the interviews and you backed him up. I didn't mean he had the interview...my mistake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Grendel]

Wrong SBWM. Bawtryneal is RUFC's Kit Sponsor. Mowbray and Venus both had interviews there.

That's what the guy claimed in his thread - both of them

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

That's what the guy claimed in his thread - both of them

No claim... It happened! Quite a few others saw them too.

 

[clint van damme]

This is the Ryton thread, right?!

I did a bit of digging on the involvement of Sport England in Planning Applications (https://www.sportengland.org/facili...development-management/planning-applications/).

There are lots of links and policy documents, but to try and summarise, an application which resulted in the loss of sports pitches would oblige the Local Planning Authority (in this case Rugby Borough Council) to consult Sport England. A condition of any permission would almost certainly be to provide replacement pitches in “a suitable location”. On top of that, one of the questions would be “Does the application also include the appropriate replacement of all necessary ancillary provision?” – so on that basis, Sport England might ask for ALL the facilities to be properly replaced as a condition of approval. Actually, there’s not a huge amount at Ryton is there? In any case, Sport England are only a consultee, and the planners would have other things to take into account too.

The recent draft Local Plan sets the context for future planning applications. For the Ryton site, it only says there must be “adequate replacement of pitch provision”. So if anyone wants to try and make sure that the training centre has to be fully replaced, they could submit comments on the Rugby Borough Local Plan, asking that the wording be toughened up - along the lines of “Implementation of site allocation DS3.9 can only occur when adequate replacement of all pitches and ancillary facilities is made …”.

On the other hand, if you think that the only way to get rid of SISU is for them to make a killing on Ryton first, you might just want the development to go ahead with as few strings attached as possible. All this cloak-and-dagger stuff from the club makes it hard to know what’s for the best.

the fact that the pitches aren't available to the public makes it all even more ambiguous.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

All that cash they wasted putting barriers up when we signed King...

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

All that cash they wasted putting barriers up when we signed King...

Actually it was to stop those nosey buggers from CET from seeing whats going on

 

[duffer]

Erm How do you make a "Firm offer" to sell?

You say something like, "OK, we're prepared to sell, you can have it for £6.5m.".

Compare and contrast with what was actually said to CCFC, "We want to build trust before we discuss ownership".

Next.

 

[duffer]

Selling to wasps didn't finish us, moving to Northampton did.

I'm sorry but this is rubbish. Moving to Northampton damaged the club beyond any doubt. But we could have come back from that. There's no way we can ever own the Ricoh now though, or get anything out of it beyond Wasps want to give us. And anyone who things Wasps will act in Coventry City's interests ought to look at the academy situation and then wipe the sleep out of their eyes.

 

[duffer]

This is the Ryton thread, right?!

I did a bit of digging on the involvement of Sport England in Planning Applications (https://www.sportengland.org/facili...development-management/planning-applications/).

There are lots of links and policy documents, but to try and summarise, an application which resulted in the loss of sports pitches would oblige the Local Planning Authority (in this case Rugby Borough Council) to consult Sport England. A condition of any permission would almost certainly be to provide replacement pitches in “a suitable location”. On top of that, one of the questions would be “Does the application also include the appropriate replacement of all necessary ancillary provision?” – so on that basis, Sport England might ask for ALL the facilities to be properly replaced as a condition of approval. Actually, there’s not a huge amount at Ryton is there? In any case, Sport England are only a consultee, and the planners would have other things to take into account too.

The recent draft Local Plan sets the context for future planning applications. For the Ryton site, it only says there must be “adequate replacement of pitch provision”. So if anyone wants to try and make sure that the training centre has to be fully replaced, they could submit comments on the Rugby Borough Local Plan, asking that the wording be toughened up - along the lines of “Implementation of site allocation DS3.9 can only occur when adequate replacement of all pitches and ancillary facilities is made …”.

On the other hand, if you think that the only way to get rid of SISU is for them to make a killing on Ryton first, you might just want the development to go ahead with as few strings attached as possible. All this cloak-and-dagger stuff from the club makes it hard to know what’s for the best.

Just to make the point, Sport England were also a statutory consultee for the Wasps application for building on the Higgs, which fundamentally makes the CCFC Academy unworkable in it's current format. You'll notice how easy they were satisfy there. I wouldn't bank on Sport England stopping this getting planning permission - when I did some googling I could hardly find any application that they hadn't eventually waved through.

Fwiw I quite like the set-up at Ryton, and I'm intrisically opposed to development on green belt because (imho) it's generally developers looking to make an easy buck rather than having to engage with the thornier (and less profitable) issue of brown-field development. However, I don't think Sport England are the ones that stop this going through.

 

[The Lurker]

I'm sorry but this is rubbish. Moving to Northampton damaged the club beyond any doubt. But we could have come back from that. There's no way we can ever own the Ricoh now though, or get anything out of it beyond Wasps want to give us. And anyone who things Wasps will act in Coventry City's interests ought to look at the academy situation and then wipe the sleep out of their eyes.

You for real? Sisu had fucking years to buy the Ricoh before upsetting the council and ACL but wanted it on the cheap by bullying and by moving us to Northampton. It backfired. If sisu bought half the Ricoh when they had the chance we wouldn't be talking about it now.

 

[Grendel]

You for real? Sisu had fucking years to buy the Ricoh before upsetting the council and ACL but wanted it on the cheap by bullying and by moving us to Northampton. It backfired. If sisu bought half the Ricoh when they had the chance we wouldn't be talking about it now.

We were asked to pay more for half than wasps paid for the whole and would still have to pay £1.3 million rent and match day costs.

Are you for real?

 

[Deleted member 2477]

Sometimes I just give up responding because the amount of effort it takes to get all of my points across about why people are talking rubbish, just isn't worth it on a phone

Be careful you dont get your head stuck on the way out

 

[robbiekeane]

Be careful you dont get your head stuck on the way out

I'm actually quite jealous of you. I wish I was stupid enough to believe all of my life's woes were caused by a single hedge fund

 

[tim07]

We were asked to pay more for half than wasps paid for the whole and would still have to pay £1.3 million rent and match day costs.

Are you for real?

Bullshit. You really are an idiot.

Sent from my SGP611 using Tapatalk

 

[albatross]

We were asked to pay more for half than wasps paid for the whole and would still have to pay £1.3 million rent and match day costs.

Are you for real?

At what point was that? I assume that was when we were actually resident in the Ricoh.

You do understand that there were independent assessments of the value of the Ricoh that were referenced in the Judicial review.

"Richard Ellis later performed a sensitivity analysis, which indicated that, if the anchor tenant rent was nil, the value of the lease would be only £6.4m; at £200,000 rent, £8.6m; and, at £400,000 rent, £10.8m."

So looks like SISU were asked to pay something like the market value at the time, the same as WASPS were asked to pay with no rental income. The council cannot simply dispose of assets to their "mates".

As for your last point, the rent.... surely if you own 50% of the company you can in some small way influence the rental discussion, that would be whole the point of the 50% acquisition wouldn't it?

 

[rupert_bear]

answer that !

 

[shmmeee]

You won't get Grendel to admit that Sisu might be a bit shit at negotiating. Obviously the simple answer is that there was a massive multi agency conspiracy against the club in favour of a random rugby team and Sisu didn't bother to put a bid in or successfully negotiate because of Ann Lucas's Dr Strange like powers that held everyone in her evil grasp, including the opposition councillors and people from other authorities.

Wake up sheeple!

 

[oucho]

We were asked to pay more for half than wasps paid for the whole and would still have to pay £1.3 million rent and match day costs.

Are you for real?

No moral qualms about what Justice Hickinbothom described as SISUs deliberate attempt to bankrupt ACL to their own advantage? Unethically using the admin process to dump the lease and exiling the club 30 miles away to get their own way not a problem for you?

Nah, you're probably one of those who think the Ricoh was ours by right and that the council was conspiring against us by not handing it to us on a plate. You"re not for real, you're on another planet.

 

[tim07]

Haha, thank you Shmmeee for providing me with that moment of clarity. I now see that GrenDullard has been right all this time.
I'm off to get some absolution, then I'm going to write to my MP

Sent from my SGP611 using Tapatalk

 

[SkyBlueZack]

Initially the council agreed to a rent strike so the value of the YB loan could be reduced. Attempt to bankrupt ACL? They almost were anyway and most certainly were without the clubs rent propping the company up. On my last point, yeah I think the ricoh should of been ours by right. It was only there because of us. As long as SISU get it though, eh? It's deplorable that fans don't mind the clubs present and future being destroyed by other parties over a hatred of the owners. Then again it's the same fans who expect a cayman island hedge fund to invest but are NOPM themselves. The same fans who believe owners should invest and not expect their money back. They should just move on and let someone else invest.

 

[tim07]

Oh dear, hands up all those who remember a free football stadium being given to the football club?
Perhaps you could evidence this with a copy of the title deeds to the Arena, Zack?

Sent from my SGP611 using Tapatalk

 

[SkyBlueZack]

No one. It wasn't given to us. It was sold to wasps. Why would I have a copy of the title deeds? I expressed my opinion. Not sure where I stated any of what you replied.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

You say something like, "OK, we're prepared to sell, you can have it for £6.5m.".

Compare and contrast with what was actually said to CCFC, "We want to build trust before we discuss ownership".

Next.

SISU... "We will offer you what Wasps have offered but, we want to know everything that will support our JR case first"

NEXT!

 

[SkyBlueZack]

Did they not ask questions as part of a due diligence process? Something people berate them for not doing when they got here? Did they not want to work with higgs more on projects? This is not me saying they weren't fishing for info. Of course they were. Just like the council were over the butts. Treated differently by the pitchfork mob though.

 

[Astute]

Er......wtf have Wasps got to do with anything?

If Wasps never turned up the arena would have been handed to SISU debt free like they wanted. They would have then put money into the playing squad. We would then have won Division 3 last season and would now be clear at the top of the Championship.

So yes Wasps are to blame for everything

 

[SkyBlueZack]

If wasps hadn't turned up. The ricoh would have gone bust thus allowing sisu to pick it up cheaply. This would then join club with stadium. Making the club worth more, to both sisu and new investors. We might of had a future.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

If wasps hadn't turned up. The ricoh would have gone bust thus allowing sisu to pick it up cheaply. This would then join club with stadium. Making the club worth more, to both sisu and new investors. We might of had a future.

Somebody else without morals!

 

[Rusty Trombone]

If wasps hadn't turned up. The ricoh would have gone bust thus allowing sisu to pick it up cheaply. This would then join club with stadium. Making the club worth more, to both sisu and new investors. We might of had a future.

SISU giving up their right to own half of ACL by breaking the lease allowed anyone else the opportunity to buy ACL. If they hadn't broken the lease no one else would have wanted to pick it up.

 

[Warwickhunt]

In all this banter no one is questioning why the council sold our assett(Coventry Taxpayers) so cheaply to the WASP's! All this About SISU shit is not giving me that answer. If they had sold it for £42 million the correct valuation I would not have a problem with WASP ownership. Instead the Nationals rags putting out shit headlines this morning about Southgate being involved some tax avoidance scheme these fucking hacks need to dig into the goings on in this deal that's where the good stuff is.

 

[SkyBlueZack]

Without morals? Shame you ain't as critical of the council and their morals eh. Your as hypocritical as they are. I await your angry shouty swearing response.