Latest SCG Minutes (20 Viewers)
- Thread starter I was eleven in 87
- Start date
Rob S
Well-Known Member
Well, this is a start...
Being more open and communicating with the wider fanbase is what a lot of us have been advising and pushing for. However, it is just a start & there will need to be more & regular communications with actual specifics. Hopefully with people like Steve Brown, CJ, Colin Henderson & others asking for more details in SCG meetings and more conversations with fans 'on the ground', we can more forward bit by bit.
Having what looks like an overall plan along with details on how the finances are working / supposed to work is a step in the right direction...we'll see how things pan out I guess.
The discussion of the financial situation is important because, although some people won't like it, we know how the club has to operate and what restrictions it has in terms of transfers and so forth. And, TBF, it is sensible. Having a club that is run within its means is a rare but very desirable thing, especially if you want to attract new ownership.
There's a nice little nugget we can use to see how sensible someone's opinion might be: the three years to build line. I.e. if that someone says something along the lines of '...but Fisher said the stadium would be ready in three years' but ignoring the actual quote: 'If we were to go ahead, our planning team thinks it can be done within three years, but that would require all parties in the city to work together...The political embargo would need to fall away, then take the planning proposal forward, then if approved we can move the scheme on. We are not in control of the situation and therefore not assuming that it will necessarily happen.', you know that they're not someone who actually pays attention.
That said, I'm putting 'dropping/finishing the legals' in as part of 'the political embargo' which probably isn't TF's intention when he uses the phrase.
As for the BPA project viability, I've had enough conversations with people who've actually built stadia to know that you can build pretty much anything that our current architecture/engineering abilities could design...IF the will and investment is there. The wider fanbase/public will want to see the next stage of any proposals before they really make any sense.
We shall see...
Being more open and communicating with the wider fanbase is what a lot of us have been advising and pushing for. However, it is just a start & there will need to be more & regular communications with actual specifics. Hopefully with people like Steve Brown, CJ, Colin Henderson & others asking for more details in SCG meetings and more conversations with fans 'on the ground', we can more forward bit by bit.
Having what looks like an overall plan along with details on how the finances are working / supposed to work is a step in the right direction...we'll see how things pan out I guess.
The discussion of the financial situation is important because, although some people won't like it, we know how the club has to operate and what restrictions it has in terms of transfers and so forth. And, TBF, it is sensible. Having a club that is run within its means is a rare but very desirable thing, especially if you want to attract new ownership.
There's a nice little nugget we can use to see how sensible someone's opinion might be: the three years to build line. I.e. if that someone says something along the lines of '...but Fisher said the stadium would be ready in three years' but ignoring the actual quote: 'If we were to go ahead, our planning team thinks it can be done within three years, but that would require all parties in the city to work together...The political embargo would need to fall away, then take the planning proposal forward, then if approved we can move the scheme on. We are not in control of the situation and therefore not assuming that it will necessarily happen.', you know that they're not someone who actually pays attention.
That said, I'm putting 'dropping/finishing the legals' in as part of 'the political embargo' which probably isn't TF's intention when he uses the phrase.
As for the BPA project viability, I've had enough conversations with people who've actually built stadia to know that you can build pretty much anything that our current architecture/engineering abilities could design...IF the will and investment is there. The wider fanbase/public will want to see the next stage of any proposals before they really make any sense.
We shall see...
Thanks for that.
For the record, you talk rot on a consistent basis. You quite clearly have an agenda that means you oppose the club moving to Butts Park Arena, why is that?
Waiting...
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
All explained in my previous posts going back to when it first came up. Anyway I don't believe any of it... Colleen Fletcher puts it better than me..
What is your agenda, why do you believe Tim Fisher when he has never delivered on anything he has said yet.
skybluebeduff
Well-Known Member
Young Ben off then in January after signing a new deal today.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Interesting. Can ask in what capacity?
I don't know why but when I read that TF had said this the first thing that came to mind was what are the chances he's called on this. Will there be an official comment from Cov United on this?
Last edited:
Rob S
Well-Known Member
Port Vale (a)Here's one, everybody being asked an agenda or asking should post the last game they went to.
[Next: Charlton (a), and every other one until Oxford (a).]
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
the access that is gated is key for me. The space created by the demolished extension doesn't really have much affect on the overall project in my opinion.
To be honest, I can in no way see sisu investing the money to overcome these obstacles in order to make this project viable which is a shame as it is possibly the only half realistic alternative to the Ricoh.
My 'agenda' is I don't want to see the football club I have supported since I was 7 disappear.
I clearly have more of an open mind on what people say than you. I always consider whether people have said things that they sincerely believed to be true at the time they said them and whether something might have changed since someone said something.
I agree the space created by the demolished extension won't have too much impact on the overall development as I don't see that it will be built on. What I had considered is that that space might create more room for crowd marshalling and this would combine well with an access route to Albany Road.
I also agree that it is the only half realistic alternative to the Ricoh.
shy_tall_knight
Well-Known Member
BPA is a pipe dream, would love it to happen but won't under SISU just feeding us more BS
1- too expensive a project compared to a new build on a greenfield site
2 - SISU have no record in delivering anything other than the smallest clubshop in the country and prior to that a barrow in Tesco, joking aside SISU haven't delivered anything of note regarding the infrastructure of the club over their 9 years in charge
3 Access is huge, think bank to highfield road and how busy Swan lane would be after the game, how can it ever be safe to have large crowds all exiting on to a major dual carriageway
4 no parking and no parking income
5 although things are better these days but trying to manage away fans in such as confined environment especially away supporters coaches etc...
My fear is that we do move to BPA but under a much reduced capacity which may be ideal for League 4, whilst JR 3 4 5 6 play out
1- too expensive a project compared to a new build on a greenfield site
2 - SISU have no record in delivering anything other than the smallest clubshop in the country and prior to that a barrow in Tesco, joking aside SISU haven't delivered anything of note regarding the infrastructure of the club over their 9 years in charge
3 Access is huge, think bank to highfield road and how busy Swan lane would be after the game, how can it ever be safe to have large crowds all exiting on to a major dual carriageway
4 no parking and no parking income
5 although things are better these days but trying to manage away fans in such as confined environment especially away supporters coaches etc...
My fear is that we do move to BPA but under a much reduced capacity which may be ideal for League 4, whilst JR 3 4 5 6 play out
Grendel
Well-Known Member
He hates ccfc and wants to squash any crumbs fans may cling to.
Here's one, everybody being asked an agenda or asking should post the last game they went to.
First game - against Leeds 1971
Most recent game - AFC Wimbledon
Nick
Administrator
What major dual carriage way? The one that we exit onto every time we leave the Ricoh?
The club shop isn't SISU, they didn't do that, Just Sport did.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
25k stadium at the butts is much more to my liking.
TF distancing himself from the legal action seems a bit strange as until this conference call he has always been at the helm of it.
It would be great if CCFC present proof that they have the finances, means and intent to CCC abd the fans to build at the Butts, at the same point that they drop they legal action. Leading to full support from the council for the BOA proposal.
Or
They agree to drop all legal action at the point of signing a long term agreement at the Ricoh.
These two ways as unlikely as they are, are the only way I see things panning out well for us fans.
TF distancing himself from the legal action seems a bit strange as until this conference call he has always been at the helm of it.
It would be great if CCFC present proof that they have the finances, means and intent to CCC abd the fans to build at the Butts, at the same point that they drop they legal action. Leading to full support from the council for the BOA proposal.
Or
They agree to drop all legal action at the point of signing a long term agreement at the Ricoh.
These two ways as unlikely as they are, are the only way I see things panning out well for us fans.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
The last paragraph would be a nightmare a stagnant division 4 club.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Why on Earth would you want them to sign a long term deal at the Ricoh?
shy_tall_knight
Well-Known Member
When I leave the Ricoh I walk via Tesco car park etc.. whilst not ideal, there is insufficient pavement room available outside the Butts which will be where the vast majority will be heading, the Ricoh there are significant more choices. the closes proximity of BPA to the dual carriageways is the problem, the A444 is a significant walk from the Ricoh no comparison.
I don't care who owns the shop, SISU or whoever they outsourced it to it is small and very crap and unfitting for a club of our stature
Nick
Administrator
The a444 is next to the Ricoh? People spill out to the A444.
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Where else is there to go ?
shy_tall_knight
Well-Known Member
No they don't
Most go under the subways towards Tesco
Others go into the car parks
Others cross the A444 at flag island and head to Holbrooks
Others cross rge bridges ober the railway & Canal
Away fans access the coaches
Not aware of many fans that walk alongside the A444 at BPA most fans will be heading towards the city centre along the same road
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
Beat me to it. Is there a chance that any convo was private and confidential between TF and someone from the Butts and not a member of this forum?
Nick
Administrator
Yes, so they spill out to the A444 to cross over to go to Holbrooks / Ash Green / CTK parking. Usually a fair few using the lights, running over, lots used to use the roundabout until those flowers grew, others cross the Leekes side.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I just want the future of the football club secured.
Whether it's the Butts or the Ricoh.
I also just want owners who can afford to own us.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
A long term deal would be massively skewed in wasps favour. Who would ever purchase a football club that if successful would give commercial earnings to an inferior landlord.
The only options are;
Another 2+2 extension
An agreement after next season to play short term at the butts
In the second scenario a site for a new ground would also have to be part of it.
People need to accept a long term deal at the Ricoh would mean no other owners with serious intent will come along.
shy_tall_knight
Well-Known Member
I think the point is a minority of fans cross the A444 the majority of fans would have to walk alongside the dual carriageway next to the BPA
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
It's possible. It's might also possible that a conversation took place between CCFC and and CU. I might also be possible that neither happened. Chances are that unless CU come out and say something officially confirming or denying we'll never know for sure. Tim's problem is because of his track record it's easier to believe skyblueruffian than it is Tim and most will. Personally I'll take it all with a pinch of salt until I know better.
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
Can't really disagree with you there T.
SkyBlueRuffian
Well-Known Member
In a working capacity.
The proof will be in the pudding when Cov Utd move to the BPA, it is not a 1 season deal and they're certainly not keeping the seat warm for SISU.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Call me an old cynic but it sounds like Tim is trying to muddy the waters and drag Cov Utd into an argument in which they have no involvement.
The last statement from Millerchip was that CCFC have no involvemen at the Butts... that position has not changed.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-groundshare-butts-park-11731299
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Why don't CU just make a statement now confirming or denying and nip it in the bud?
I'm not having a go, just seems a simple thing to do.
Nick
Administrator
Hasn't Millerchip since sold the lease, so his involvement has gone so it has changed.
It would be down to Jon Sharp now.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
I think they'd be well advised to keep out of it 100%