The Butts - CRFC Confirms it is willing to join mediation talks (9 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Sky Blues

Sky Blues

Active Member
Look! A unicorn!
horsetwerk.0.gif
 
ccfc92

ccfc92

Well-Known Member
torchomatic said:
Who knows? Certainly not you or I. If there is even a small chance of being at the Butts I would take it over staying at the Ricoh. Each to our own though.
Click to expand...

So you believe the Butts is a better option to make us competitive than the Rioch?

Simple yes or no question, nothing sinister :)
 
S

SkyblueSpecial

Well-Known Member
Earlsdon_Skyblue1 said:
View attachment 6853 View attachment 6854

'The BPA site is not big enough to house a stadium big enough.' - Myth debunked.

Above are two screen shots:
One of the Boavista stadium (28,263 capactiy) - Perimeter: 609.847m
One of the BPA site - Perimeter: 608.406m

It would need to be clever, and it would need to be rotated a little bit to fit the same guide as I have presented.

It could definitely work however, even if the chances of it getting off the ground are remote.
Click to expand...

Your stadium cuts into the car Park of the retirement village
 
Liquid Gold

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
SkyblueSpecial said:
Agree about Wasps but highlights a serious point. If they can't make enough out of the Ricoh to repay their debt, how could we possibly make enough out of sharing the much smaller BPA?
Click to expand...
Well thats something we as fans can't answer as we won't know what the funding is or what we would generate from it. Another reason we should be putting pressure on all sides to put something forward. Staying at the Ricoh on the sort of rental deal Wasps want will be the death of us.
 
S

SkyblueSpecial

Well-Known Member
Liquid Gold said:
Well thats something we as fans can't answer as we won't know what the funding is or what we would generate from it. Another reason we should be putting pressure on all sides to put something forward. Staying at the Ricoh on the sort of rental deal Wasps want will be the death of us.
Click to expand...

Well we as fans blindly followed the club and got behind the Ricoh deal and pressed the council to go ahead with building it.

I would hope the fans take a more sober approach to it this time.

We should be supporting nothing that anyone proposes until it has been explained to us in explicit detail as to how it will benefit us.
 
SkyBlueRuffian

SkyBlueRuffian

Well-Known Member
dongonzalos said:
I think he would like it. I don't think he will want more than the 11-12k capacity that is already agreed for planning permission.
I think he knows that would be bad for the rugby club.
I think he is smart enough to put safeguards in place that his role is you make your peace with the council first as we don't want them as enemies.
I think he is smart enough not to trust SISU hence he is firmly saying you get the council on side before we do anything.
I think he will make it know tithe council he is ok with it if they are.
Then I think he will step back and let SISU do all the work behind the scenes and in the press.
I think he won't invest any money in and the minimum time he needs to, in order to ensure if SISU are not bluffing the Rugby club are protected.
Then when it all falls apart he and the rugby club will not be affected at all.
I think as long as he doesn't upset the council he has nothing to lose, by going along with it.
Click to expand...
Maybe CRFC have their own ambitions and want to be a far bigger club then they currently are. Maybe they want to get into the RUFC prem league so would want a bigger ground to expand??
 
Liquid Gold

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
SkyblueSpecial said:
Well we as fans blindly followed the club and got behind the Ricoh deal and pressed the council to go ahead with building it.

I would hope the fans take a more sober approach to it this time.

We should be supporting nothing that anyone proposes until it has been explained to us in explicit detail as to how it will benefit us.
Click to expand...
Completely agree, pressure on all sides to get something reasonable put forward that would benefit the club.
 
Moff

Moff

Well-Known Member
skybluetony176 said:
That's actually exactly why you put an outline planning application in in the first instance. There's no point spending time and money arranging finances, paying architects to draw up plan's and designs etc. When you don't know if there is even a chance of it happening. That's why there is an outline application process. Don't believe me google outline planning application. There's loads of guidance online not only from the government but also independent planning specialist. This is why I don't buy it. Some posters will have you believe that it's possible to get a 25k stadium on the site. If that's so why isn't there an outline application in place? It cost very little to do especially in comparison to spanking a fortune on having plans ready to submit for a detailed planning application blindly hoping it gets approved. In essence it's due diligence to put an outline application in first before you spend good money chasing a detailed application.

Like I said, all the information is on line. Don't take my word for it.
Click to expand...

Thanks Tony. I used to work in Planning years ago, but changed career path as it wasn't for me, and was referring to an Outline Planning Application, but didn't explain it very well.

I wasn't aware one was in for the project in relation to the 'alleged' CCFC plans, and so this was what I referring to. If there is one I stand corrected and will have a nose at it. If not I believe what was originally referred to was architects plans, but then how do we know what exactly that is catering for?
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
SkyBlueRuffian said:
Maybe CRFC have their own ambitions and want to be a far bigger club then they currently are. Maybe they want to get into the RUFC prem league so would want a bigger ground to expand??
Click to expand...

Pretty sure he said he didn't want the stadIum bigger than what the planning permission that is already in place, as that would affect negatively on the rugby club atmosphere wise.
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
SkyBlueRuffian said:
Maybe CRFC have their own ambitions and want to be a far bigger club then they currently are. Maybe they want to get into the RUFC prem league so would want a bigger ground to expand??
Click to expand...

Pretty sure he said he didn't want the stadIum bigger than what the planning permission that is already in place, as that would affect negatively on the rugby club atmosphere wise.
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
dongonzalos said:
Pretty sure he said he didn't want the stadIum bigger than what the planning permission that is already in place, as that would affect negatively on the rugby club atmosphere wise.
Click to expand...
From last May
Mr Sharp told the Coventry Observer today the first stage was to complete a feasibility study for the redevelopment and groundshare, and that architects were currently engaged. The second stage would be to examine financing.

He told us today one possibility was for two new stands to be built in the first instance, with a potential initial capacity of 15,000. The ground currently has one stand and a 4,000 capacity.

He added it was also possible that the ground could be expanded by increments depending on growth and demand, notably were Coventry City Football Club to win promotions.

He said one concern was that the football club’s desire for a 25,000 stadium may be considered too large for Coventry rugby club present crowds, but said nothing was ruled out.

The plan is also to join the two club’s academies in a scheme for the whole community. Academy facilities would be based off-site, said Mr Sharp.

Mr Sharp revealed in December there was potential for development on a larger area of land than the current Butts stadium footprint.
Click to expand...
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Moff said:
Thanks Tony. I used to work in Planning years ago, but changed career path as it wasn't for me, and was referring to an Outline Planning Application, but didn't explain it very well.

I wasn't aware one was in for the project in relation to the 'alleged' CCFC plans, and so this was what I referring to. If there is one I stand corrected and will have a nose at it. If not I believe what was originally referred to was architects plans, but then how do we know what exactly that is catering for?
Click to expand...

As far as I know there isn't. Sorry I misunderstood the point you were making and was actually thinking I was correcting you.

Some will have you believe that there is planning approved for 15k when in actual fact there only seems to be a lapsed detailed approval for 3 stands which is now expired (in 2008 I think).

As you seem to have some actual experience in this field perhaps you could confirm if they could still build off the back of this application or was 2008 the deadline for work to start and any new development would have to start the planning process again from the beginning?

Also someone else would have you believe that an architect has drawn up plans for a 25k stadium on the site. If that's the case would you think it would be prudent to put in an outline application for this to see how the land lies with a view to future proofing the site for future further development?

In other words you hedge your bets before putting in a detailed application for a smaller stadium stadium wether that be 12 or 15k? Surely any promise of building a smaller stadium with view to expanding to 25k is pie in the sky and committing to never having a bigger stadium than the one you originally build.
 
Senior Vick from Alicante

Senior Vick from Alicante

Well-Known Member
The thing that is worrying me is this. Fisher stated we need access to matchday and non matchday revenues stating that the last season at Highfield Road profit was 1.5 million. How much of this would be spent on the team really, I suspect it would be used to pay for build costs and interest charges on loans used to make it happen. It's only worth doing if the extra income is used to put product on the pitch, this is something Sisu don't have a track record of.
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
If permission is granted | The decision-making process | Planning Portal

Interesting link. If the planning that people want you to believe is already in place is the expired one that people have linked on here then no the site doesn't currently have planning agreed. It will have to be applied for again.

Has anyone else found any that haven't expired or been withdrawn on the site? I can't. If there is it's a matter of public records so it will be available.
 
Captain Dart

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
Senior Vick from Alicante said:
The thing that is worrying me is this. Fisher stated we need access to matchday and non matchday revenues stating that the last season at Highfield Road profit was 1.5 million. How much of this would be spent on the team really, I suspect it would be used to pay for build costs and interest charges on loans used to make it happen. It's only worth doing if the extra income is used to put product on the pitch, this is something Sisu don't have a track record of.
Click to expand...
LOL, the club posted a £1.4M loss in 2005 after player sales,a £7M loss before sales, turnover on commercial activities was £3.7M, catering turnover was £911,265. You can get the accounts from companies house.
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Coventry City Council: Planning Application Search

So where is these approved plans that are in place for anything resembling future development at the BPA?

Sorry. The link doesn't seem to keep the search criteria that's entered. Put in Butts park in the address box and hit search. I can't see anything resembling what we've been told already exists. Maybe I'm not using the search correctly.
 
Last edited:
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
Have I missed something, Fisher didn't say we'd already got planning permission did he?
Click to expand...

Old fiver did on here, grendull agrees with him (so it must be right) and looking at twitter it looks like LR has made the same claim while having a spat with Stuart Linnell after SL dared question the feasibility of it. Not sure if TF has made the claim personally himself but how are you supposed to remember every version of everything TF has ever said.
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
skybluetony176 said:
Coventry City Council: Planning Application Search

So where is these approved plans that are in place for anything resembling future development at the BPA?

Sorry. The link doesn't seem to keep the search criteria that's entered. Put in Butts park in the address box and hit search. I can't see anything resembling what we've been told already exists. Maybe I'm not using the search correctly.
Click to expand...
Like I said pages ago, the fact the site has had permission for a stadium in the past is enough to suggest it could get such again (up to around 10K or so). It would need a new planning application of course but the fact that a previous one had been approved would support a new one. You do try too hard.
 
Joy Division

Joy Division

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
Like I said pages ago, the fact the site has had permission for a stadium in the past is enough to suggest it could get such again (up to around 10K or so). It would need a new planning application of course but the fact that a previous one had been approved would support a new one. You do try too hard.
Click to expand...

*suggest* and *could* is quite different to *has*
 
italiahorse

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
Earlsdon_Skyblue1 said:
Yeah, it isn't perfect but that isn't the point.

You can shift the land I highlighted further towards the main road and the 28,000 seater fits easily.

That's not really the concern for you though is it?
Click to expand...

Is this a wind up ?
Tim Fisher is certainly winding people up. I didn't think anyone actually believed him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 10 (members: 0, guests: 10)
Top