In your opinion will we eventually move to the Butts (7 Viewers)

[dutchman]

Surely the residents of Earlsdon Park Retirement Village take most things lying down? Or at least propped up in bed with a couple of pillows?

It should never have been built in the first place, that land is reserved for "community activities" not residential properties. It was a sports ground even before the technical college was built. The council ignoring its own planning regulations again.

 

---

[Otis]

It should never have been built in the first place, that land is reserved for "community activities" not residential properties. It was a sports ground even before the technical college was built. The council ignoring its own planning regulations again.

Yep. Big mistake building it there, especially as there has been talk of expanding the BPA for quite a number of years.

 

[hill83]

Yep. Big mistake building it there, especially as there has been talk of expanding the BPA for quite a number of years.

 

[SkyblueSpecial]

It should never have been built in the first place, that land is reserved for "community activities" not residential properties. It was a sports ground even before the technical college was built. The council ignoring its own planning regulations again.

Community activities are held there which any local person over 55 is welcome to attend.

 

[SkyblueSpecial]

Yep. Big mistake building it there, especially as there has been talk of expanding the BPA for quite a number of years.

Planning applications aren't judged on what a private business might do in the future.

If CRFC objected to the building of Earlsdon Park then they had every opportunity to register their objections at the planning phase.

 

[dutchman]

If CRFC objected to the building of Earlsdon Park then they had every opportunity to register their objections at the planning phase.

Since the council owns 25% of Earlsdon Park they are hardly going to take notice of any objections.

 

[davebart]

When it comes to planning there is no such thing as a right to light.
What will influence any planning decision most is how many voters it affects. Yes the EPRV represents a large number of people but not as many as support CCFC.

 

[Houdi]

Hard to believe people believe any of this nonsense. Over 4 years ago now,Fisher talked of a new stadium, he was always closing in on a land deal,at all these various secretive locations,yet magically they all always fell through,just before he could announce their location. Now suddenly the Butts is on the agenda.
A site that is hemmed in with Earlsdon village on one side,and the railway line at the far end. It has one stand that can seat what 1000/1500 people. To get to those seats you have to walk along the front of the pitch,hardly suitable for football crowds. The only real point of access to the site is from one main road, parking would be a nightmare.
Even if you were to build 4 average sized stands, there would no land left outside,and you would get say 20,000 fans all leaving and heading in one direction,hemmed in from all sides.
In many ways the location would be ideal, central and all that, but it is simply too small.Plus you have to ask,why would CRFC,want to play in a 15-20,000 stadium,when they get gates of just over a 1000. It doesn't even fit into the oft repeated mantra from Fisher that they need to own their own stadium.

 

[SkyblueSpecial]

Since the council owns 25% of Earlsdon Park they are hardly going to take notice of any objections.

Since the council owns 25% of Earlsdon Park they are hardly going to take notice of any objections.

The council owns no share in the retirement village.

 

[SkyblueSpecial]

When it comes to planning there is no such thing as a right to light.
What will influence any planning decision most is how many voters it affects. Yes the EPRV represents a large number of people but not as many as support CCFC.

You cannot build a wall directly in front of somebody's front window.

Any planning application will be based on the law. The amount of fans we have is as relevant as Sky Blue Sams waist size.

 

[skybluetony176]

Might be worth reading this before making your mind up

Statement from Jon Sharp – Coventry Rugby

 

[ajsccfc]

I'm going with a big fat no after reading that statement.

 

[covcity4life]

I'm going with a big fat no after reading that statement.

dont they mean we will deal with ccfc(fisher) but not sisu(joy) ?

 

[ajsccfc]

You may be right, I think they just won't have any contact directly with the owners themselves.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Why can't we have a 'dunno' option?

What a bout a don't care option?

 

[davebart]

You cannot build a wall directly in front of somebody's front window.

Any planning application will be based on the law. The amount of fans we have is as relevant as Sky Blue Sams waist size.

1. Yes you can. Smallholder to keep wooden fence inches from neighbour's windows
2. I wish this were true.

 

[davebart]

My view regarding the vote is that there is every chance it will happen. SISU do not care if we are reduced to 1000 fans. They will just cut their cloth to suit. And they are highly likely to p*ss Wasps off enough at some point to be thrown out of the Ricoh.

 

[dutchman]

The council owns no share in the retirement village.

52 of the apartments are reserved for council tenants are they not?

 

[SkyblueSpecial]

52 of the apartments are reserved for council tenants are they not?

52 of the apartments are reserved for tenants in receipt of council funded benefits. The council has no ownership of any apartments.

 

[dutchman]

52 of the apartments are reserved for tenants in receipt of council funded benefits. The council has no ownership of any apartments.

But it's the council who decides who gets them is it not?

 

[kmj5000]

Hard to believe people believe any of this nonsense. Over 4 years ago now,Fisher talked of a new stadium, he was always closing in on a land deal,at all these various secretive locations,yet magically they all always fell through,just before he could announce their location. Now suddenly the Butts is on the agenda.
A site that is hemmed in with Earlsdon village on one side,and the railway line at the far end. It has one stand that can seat what 1000/1500 people. To get to those seats you have to walk along the front of the pitch,hardly suitable for football crowds. The only real point of access to the site is from one main road, parking would be a nightmare.
Even if you were to build 4 average sized stands, there would no land left outside,and you would get say 20,000 fans all leaving and heading in one direction,hemmed in from all sides.
In many ways the location would be ideal, central and all that, but it is simply too small.Plus you have to ask,why would CRFC,want to play in a 15-20,000 stadium,when they get gates of just over a 1000. It doesn't even fit into the oft repeated mantra from Fisher that they need to own their own stadium.

And how are we going to get this elusive and essential 365-day extra income he keeps on about? It's all utter bullshit!

 

[SkyblueSpecial]

But it's the council who decides who gets them is it not?

Up to a point. The council will suggest who should get them, but that person can be refused if they don't meet the criteria set down by the village.

Either way, that is no different to any retirement village throughout the uk, and it makes no difference to the council where an individual is housed within the city.

 

[Gazolba]

You should have included an option "Definite Maybe".

 

[italiahorse]

We will move but it will be another political play by TF to the detriment of the club.
Temporary stands up to 8,000 and FL approval as Wasps up the rent. (Directly or indirectly through security etc)

 

[dongonzalos]

Excuse my 'agenda' or as some less paranoid could call it "an opinion different to the site owner and Grendel"

Over 100 voted so far around 80% feel it is more unlikely than likely to happen and/or feel it's not happening in a million years .
Around 20% feel it is is more likely to happen than not or it's a bang right certainty.

So only 20% of a sample of SBT fans have had it from SISU yet again.

Sorry 'agenda/ my opinion that differs to yours' post over.

As I said on the other thread. Where I was asked to prove anyone has fallen for SISU's crap, bring it back up in two years and ram it down my throat if I have it wrong.

 

[dongonzalos]

You should have included an option "Definite Maybe".

Mate some people (not you as I know you are taking the piss) either don't get the idea of what is your opinion. Or for some strange reason they don't want to admit what their opinion is, yet you can tell what it is by their postings. Then there is the odd one who genuinely have no opinion because it is so messed up. Crazy situation really.

 

[Warwickhunt]

Anyone voting for any of the definite options is a clown.

Hills they are missing a question? Is Tim definitely bull shitting?

 

[hill83]

Hills they are missing a question? Is Tim definitely bull sitting?

 

[shmmeee]

Up to a point. The council will suggest who should get them, but that person can be refused if they don't meet the criteria set down by the village.

Either way, that is no different to any retirement village throughout the uk, and it makes no difference to the council where an individual is housed within the city.

I wouldn't bother mate. Most on here subscribe to Shrodingers Council theory: simultaneously useless and in charge of absolutely everything from the weather to every private business in the city. A shadowy organisation capable of breaking national law, controlling who applies to which university, the colour and shape of every building, yet incapable of taking the bins on time.