"The Pertinent Question" (6 Viewers)

tisza

Well-Known Member
Ranson was pretty open about his plan when he came in and people have repeatedly asked for SISU's plan.
his 1st Tv interview ( i think on Central) he said that SISU weren't necessarily in for the long-term as the funds they were using nornally operated on 5 year cycles which was how long he believed it would take to stabilize the club and make it attractive for new owners.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
but the point remains can't sell Ryton until a new facility is in place - which would probably cost more than the Ryton income anyway.

Not true. RBC and Sports England require replacement of the pitch provision not replacement of the training facilities. It's been spun into the latter but that's not what it says on the RBC paper work which is a matter of public records and available to anyone. Basically some goal posts in a field.
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
but the point remains can't sell Ryton until a new facility is in place - which would probably cost more than the Ryton income anyway.
You have been misled by Fishers weasel words, there is no requirement to replace what is at Ryton, the only requirement is to provide 2 pitches in the Rugby DC area.

Otherwise it is necessary for the club to train somewhere, but they don't need to own it or build some place, they could leave Ryton and rent somewhere.

It isn't cheap to build a training ground, look at what Fleetwood have done, do you really believe SISU will invest upto £8M to replace Ryton!
Sir Alex Ferguson opens Fleetwood Town's 'fantastic' new £8m training base | Daily Mail Online
 
Last edited:

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
It may well end up being sold for £1 but the key will be what happens with the debt. Written off, pennies in the pound offer or carried over to the new owners.

Ranson was pretty open about his plan when he came in and people have repeatedly asked for SISU's plan. Problem is you then get Fisher on the radio saying exactly what they plan is and people either don't believe him, which is understandable, or just choose to ignore what he says.

Key is the debt and preference shares certainly. However it is the same principle the expectation will not match the reality. Anyone settling out the debt is unlikely to match expectations in an arms length transaction, because SISU have no place to go with it all. A purchaser is in the position to say thanks but no thanks. There are I believe people who would be interested but not at any price and there are not many of them that SISU can choose from. ARVO & SISU investors via SBS&L are going to need to take a big hit if they are set on selling

Yes Ranson made a few comments, seems in the end he didn't have the wherewithal or backing to see them through. In that light you could classify his plan as worthless. One of his priorities was not the ownership of the stadium which according to TF/JS and others is vital to a clubs survival. Still he got away with a nice settlement despite contributing to our situation didn't he.

Is what TF says on the radio really a plan or is it the only choice he has ? Seems to me that given he has no where to raise capital from he is left with only one option. Hardly a plan as such more a case of fire fighting to keep head above water nothing more. Not really something he is fully in control of.
 
Last edited:

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
So they have said that only 2 pitches need to be replaced and that's it?

RBC state that pitch provision has to be replaced as stated by sports England before the site can be developed and that's it. I'm sure you can do the maths yourself ;)
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
RBC state that pitch provision has to be replaced as stated by sports England before the site can be developed and that's it. I'm sure you can do the maths yourself ;)
If its too hard he can't understand it. :mad:
 

Nick

Administrator
RBC state that pitch provision has to be replaced as stated by sports England before the site can be developed and that's it. I'm sure you can do the maths yourself ;)

Was that in the local plan or a statement they made?

It will still be down to translation anyway won't it? Unless Wasps are literally going to put up a couple of football pitches somewhere else for the one lost.

For the record, I can't see a state of the art training centre going up. It will be something at a uni or somewhere.
 
Last edited:

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Was that in the local plan or a statement they made?

It will still be down to translation anyway won't it? Unless Wasps are literally going to put up a couple of football pitches somewhere else for the one lost.

For the record, I can't see a state of the art training centre going up. It will be something at a uni or somewhere.

https://www.rugby.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/1170/ryton-on-dunsmore_-_addendum.pdf

Here you go Nick. Under Site Conclusion on the last page "relocation of sports pitches to an alternative site". That is the only provision.
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
Cheers! There's not been much pressure on Rugby Council or Sport England to safeguard it as yet or demand more guarantees.
It is up to SISU to safeguard the clubs training facilities. Nobody else has any responsibility to do anything.
 

Nick

Administrator
It is up to SISU to safeguard the clubs training facilities. Nobody else has any responsibility to do anything.

OK then, must have missed the fans protesting then over something that isn't their responsibility. Probably in the same place your replies to my PMs and posts in the thread are.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Cheers! There's not been much pressure on Rugby Council or Sport England to safeguard it as yet or demand more guarantees.

What's it got to do with either of them? Neither of them run the club. Sport England's mission statement is " We’re here to increase the number of people doing sport and activity – no matter what their background, ability or age". Their interest begins and ends with the relocation of the sports pitches so they can tick a box to say job done, two sports pitches haven't been lost and RBC care even less then that.

The onus is on the club to replace training facilities. No one else. Wouldn't you have thought that selling Ryton was part of a bigger plan to build new and improved training facilities? Where's this plan? They seem to be moving the sale of Ryton along well enough, they've approached a local authority (see they can do it when they want), they've done a presentation at a Ryton Parish Council meeting and they have apparently employed the services of an agent who specialises as an independently owned property company specialising in obtaining planning permission on redundant or under utilised land, green field or brown field. Yet no new plans for Rytons replacement. How strange. Its almost as if one thing is going to happen and the other isn't. If you were being skeptical that is ;)
 

ashbyjan

Well-Known Member
Nick - Trust has put in FOI requests and clarification requests to RBC about this matter but to date they have been totally unforthcoming with answers. Is it a simple case of replacing the Ryton pitches with any old 2 pitches elsewhere or is it a facility replacement - lack of response makes you worry that its the former. Sports England have been equally uncooperative.

OK then, must have missed the fans protesting then over something that isn't their responsibility. Probably in the same place your replies to my PMs and posts in the thread are.
k -
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Nick - Trust has put in FOI requests and clarification requests to RBC about this matter but to date they have been totally unforthcoming with answers. Is it a simple case of replacing the Ryton pitches with any old 2 pitches elsewhere or is it a facility replacement - lack of response makes you worry that its the former. Sports England have been equally uncooperative.-

Any clarification forthcoming from the club?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top