Highfield Road 2 (16 Viewers)

[Nick]

CRFC are smart enough to withstand pressure from CCC, as the alternative of letting to SISU (would on past experience) surely lead to years of litigation for one reason or another.

That's said but the only legal action has been about the council hasn't it? Have any other suppliers / people who have dealt with the club had action against them?

It would be interesting to know considering people are saying it's a given that the Rugby club would face legal action themselves.

 

---

[skybluetony176]

I didn't say he was scared of the council. I said he needs the council fully onside with his plans. Are you saying they can't make things difficult for him if they wanted to?

It isn't me acting dumb here, you have already ignored that the council jumped to put a clause in to prevent it when they got wind of it.

On what grounds can the council refuse his plans? If they refuse his plans who would Sharpe appeal to?

I don’t think you are being dumb, you know exactly what you’re saying. You’re banking on others being dumb enough to buy what you’re saying at face value without actually considering how things actually works. Fair play to you though, you do seem to have hooked a few.

 

[skybluetony176]

He already is involved with CCFC.

Not SISU. And he’s wisely keeping it that way.

 

[Nick]

On what grounds can the council refuse his plans? If they refuse his plans who would Sharpe appeal to?

I don’t think you are being dumb, you know exactly what you’re saying. You’re banking on others being dumb enough to buy what you’re saying at face value without actually considering how things actually works. Fair play to you though, you do seem to have hooked a few.

The council can make life very difficult for him or they can make things easier for him. They can sail through or he can be forced to appeal every single decision all the way through up the chain.

You do understand that don't you?

 

[skybluetony176]

CRFC are smart enough to withstand pressure from CCC, as the alternative of letting to SISU (would on past experience) surely lead to years of litigation for one reason or another.

Exactly. Why would he need the council to push some buttons to realise that getting into bed with SISU is a risk not worth taking. He’d have to have been living on the moon for the past 12 years to not realise that.

 

[Nick]

Exactly. Why would he need the council to push some buttons to realise that getting into bed with SISU is a risk not worth taking. He’d have to have been living on the moon for the past 12 years to not realise that.

Taking some rent to let the club play there every other week isn't really getting into bed with them.

Taking SISU on as partners with shares in the ground would be.

 

[Colin Steins Smile]

That's said but the only legal action has been about the council hasn't it? Have any other suppliers / people who have dealt with the club had action against them?

It would be interesting to know considering people are saying it's a given that the Rugby club would face legal action themselves.

There was legal action against the Alan Higgs Trust in the past and recently Wasps are cited. Additionally, at the end of our time at Northampton there was a threat of action, which was dropped after reaching agreement on exiting the clubs original agreement there.

The bottom line is whether you would want to do business with an organisation that has a consistent track record of pursuing litigation. I personally, would prefer a quieter life with no distractions from my core business

 

[Nick]

Mr Jon Sharp had been trying to buy the head lease from Mr Millerchip in order to clear the way for a possible ground share with CCFC, but that deal appears to have stalled.

Now Mr Sharp has told the Telegraph any final decision over the redevelopment of the Butts Park Arena would be down to Mr Millerchip.

Asked if any groundshare deal was officially dead, he said: “That’s up to Chris to determine. There was a good possibility there for us, but it’s up to him.”

 

[Liquid Gold]

There was legal action against the Alan Higgs Trust in the past and recently Wasps are cited. Additionally, at the end of our time at Northampton there was a threat of action, which was dropped after reaching agreement on exiting the clubs original agreement there.

The bottom line is whether you would want to do business with an organisation that has a consistent track record of pursuing litigation. I personally, would prefer a quieter life with no distractions from my core business

Shame the council didn't come to that conclusion when designating Sisu as preferred bidders in the first place as they were the only ones that weren't after the stadium

 

[Nick]

There was legal action against the Alan Higgs Trust in the past and recently Wasps are cited. Additionally, at the end of our time at Northampton there was a threat of action, which was dropped after reaching agreement on exiting the clubs original agreement there.

The bottom line is whether you would want to do business with an organisation that has a consistent track record of pursuing litigation. I personally, would prefer a quieter life with no distractions from my core business

The legal action was started by the Higgs wasn't it?

I agree, I'd want nothing to do with SISU on a personal level. He is happy to work with the club already though isn't he?

 

[skybluetony176]

The council can make life very difficult for him or they can make things easier for him. They can sail through or he can be forced to appeal every single decision all the way through up the chain.

You do understand that don't you?

You keep saying that as if it carries any weight. Try adding some substance to it. They can’t turn down planning based on the people someone deals with. The council would face more litigation if they even considered it and a successful appeal would give SISU all the ammunition they would need to pursue it.

Planning has four stages the first being outline application. A very simple and cheap process used to test the water before and expensive detailed planning is sought. It wouldn’t have cost either Sharpe or SISU hardly anything to call any bluff from the council and you don’t even have to own land to put an outline application in so SISU not only could have done that alone they could have done it without Sharpes backing should they have wished. Tell me exactly what it is I don’t understand? You’re problem is that I do understand and because I understand I can see who was bluffing exactly and that it was Sharpe who called that bluff. Not sure why you’re pretending otherwise.

 

[skybluetony176]

Taking some rent to let the club play there every other week isn't really getting into bed with them.

Taking SISU on as partners with shares in the ground would be.

That wasn’t what had been suggested and you know it.

 

[Colin Steins Smile]

The legal action was started by the Higgs wasn't it?

I agree, I'd want nothing to do with SISU on a personal level. He is happy to work with the club already though isn't he?

You are right that Boddy seems to have improved relationships with potential stakeholders, which is to his credit. However, we've constantly been fed the line that "it's not the club" that is taking this action, but the overarching company. Therefore, any partner in working with CCFC has to take into account that whilst the club officers may say one thing - decisions will be made above their level that leads to litigation.

 

[Nick]

You keep saying that as if it carries any weight. Try adding some substance to it. They can’t turn down planning based on the people someone deals with. The council would face more litigation if they even considered it and a successful appeal would give SISU all the ammunition they would need to pursue it.

Planning has four stages the first being outline application. A very simple and cheap process used to test the water before and expensive detailed planning is sought. It wouldn’t have cost either Sharpe or SISU hardly anything to call any bluff from the council and you don’t even have to own land to put an outline application in so SISU not only could have done that alone they could have done it without Sharpes backing should they have wished. Tell me exactly what it is I don’t understand? You’re problem is that I do understand and because I understand I can see who was bluffing exactly and that it was Sharpe who called that bluff. Not sure why you’re pretending otherwise.

Add some substance to what?

Did the council not jump straight in when they got wind to try and block it?

Are you saying the Council couldn't make things difficult or easier for somebody to get through the process?

 

[DionDublinsForehead]

I don't fancy going to treacle town to watch my team play.

 

[skybluetony176]

Add some substance to what?

Did the council not jump straight in when they got wind to try and block it?

Are you saying the Council couldn't make things difficult or easier for somebody to get through the process?

Block what? It was a bluff. There was nothing to block.

I’m clearly saying that it was never tested and have explained why with some substance. It could have easily and cheaply been tested and long before any formal legal arrangement between Sharpe and SISU would have existed. It wasn’t tested because it would have called SISU’s bluff and naive people like you wouldn’t still be buying into that bluff and it all being the councils fault. You’ve been sewn up like a kipper. Actually I don’t think you have. You’re not stupid enough to fall for it but you continue to bank on others being stupid enough to fall for it otherwise you wouldn’t keep peddling it.

Give Sharpe the credit he deserves for a change. He’s clearly clever enough to realise exposing CRFC to SISU is a risk not worth taking. The council has nothing to do with that common sense approach and if they did then shame on Sharpe.

 

[Nick]

Block what? It was a bluff. There was nothing to block.

I’m clearly saying that it was never tested and have explained why with some substance. It could have easily and cheaply been tested and long before any formal legal arrangement between Sharpe and SISU would have existed. It wasn’t tested because it would have called SISU’s bluff and naive people like you wouldn’t still be buying into that bluff and it all being the councils fault. You’ve been sewn up like a kipper. Actually I don’t think you have. You’re not stupid enough to fall for it but you continue to bank on others being stupid enough to fall for it otherwise you wouldn’t keep peddling it.

Give Sharpe the credit he deserves for a change. He’s clearly clever enough to realise exposing CRFC to SISU is a risk not worth taking. The council has nothing to do with that common sense approach and if they did then shame on Sharpe.

So they didn't do anything at all to try and add things into the lease to prevent anything? Was that made up?

As I have quoted, he didn't seem that against it early on?

I haven't said it is ALL the council's fault have I? Take a step back, SISU will have a copy of the correspondence to the Rugby club (I assume they leaked it as well) to give to the EFL when they ask about other places in Coventry. The council moving to change the lease shows they didn't want the club to play there.

 

[skybluetony176]

He’s been consistently clear on this. This is from last year

"We will not deal with them as long as they are owned by Sisu," Sharp told BBC Coventry & Warwickshire.

"They are a sister club bearing the city's name with a proud old history, who have fallen from grace, just like us. We're marching back up. I sincerely hope they do too.

"We'll offer what support we can to get there, but the one thing we cannot do is have any formal arrangement with them, any groundshare, whilst they're owned by their current owners.

"Whether correctly or not, the current owners are vilified within the city. Whether that is fair or not, I'm not going to comment on.

"But we have spent many years re-establishing our status in the city. I'm not prepared to risk that by associating with City's owners."

 

[Nick]

He’s been consistently clear on this. This is from last year

"We will not deal with them as long as they are owned by Sisu," Sharp told BBC Coventry & Warwickshire.

"They are a sister club bearing the city's name with a proud old history, who have fallen from grace, just like us. We're marching back up. I sincerely hope they do too.

"We'll offer what support we can to get there, but the one thing we cannot do is have any formal arrangement with them, any groundshare, whilst they're owned by their current owners.

"Whether correctly or not, the current owners are vilified within the city. Whether that is fair or not, I'm not going to comment on.

"But we have spent many years re-establishing our status in the city. I'm not prepared to risk that by associating with City's owners."

So that's from last year and this is from 2016, so it shows a change which isn't consistent:

Mr Jon Sharp had been trying to buy the head lease from Mr Millerchip in order to clear the way for a possible ground share with CCFC, but that deal appears to have stalled.

Now Mr Sharp has told the Telegraph any final decision over the redevelopment of the Butts Park Arena would be down to Mr Millerchip.

Asked if any groundshare deal was officially dead, he said: “That’s up to Chris to determine. There was a good possibility there for us, but it’s up to him.”

All your quote does is show himself distance from SISU, which doesn't really disprove what people are saying Like I said, him associating with SISU will make his own plans harder. He would be silly to risk his own plans or make them harder to achieve over a groundshare.

Why did Sharpe enter discussions and announce it at a fans forum?

 

[chiefdave]

He’s been consistently clear on this. This is from last year

If you read all his statements you will see he chooses his words very carefully.

Presumably Sharpe wanting nothing to do with the football club is why our ticket office is based there and why the football league were shown around.

 

[Nick]

If you read all his statements you will see he chooses his words very carefully.

Presumably Sharpe wanting nothing to do with the football club is why our ticket office is based there and why the football league were shown around.

Also why he told fans at a fans forum about it rather than ruling it out straight away from the start which Tony thinks he has done.

 

[skybluetony176]

So that's from last year and this is from 2016, so it shows a change which isn't consistent:



All your quote does is show himself distance from SISU, which doesn't really disprove what people are saying Like I said, him associating with SISU will make his own plans harder. He would be silly to risk his own plans or make them harder to achieve over a groundshare.

Yes and between Sharpe making his comments that you’ve quoted and the comments I’ve quoted Sharpe has taken ownership of the head lease but still hasn’t changed his tune on dealing with SISU. He’s also never once linked it to his own plans. His plans for the BPA and SISU’s were never the same according to the article everyone wet themselves over in the article. I remember posters clambering over themselves trying to prove that a 25k stadium would fit on the site.

He’s been consistently clear on why it won’t happen. Not sure why you’re try to prove him a liar.

They had a big announcement at the end of last year didn’t they? Not the 16k rising to 25k Tim was talking about and he dismissed any possibility of that from day one. That’s the thing he’s been most consistent on in fact.

 

[Nick]

Yes and between Sharpe making his comments that you’ve quoted and the comments I’ve quoted Sharpe has taken ownership of the head lease but still hasn’t changed his tune on dealing with SISU. He’s also never once linked it to his own plans. His plans for the BPA and SISU’s were never the same according to the article everyone wet themselves over in the article. I remember posters clambering over themselves trying to prove that a 25k stadium would fit on the site.

He’s been consistently clear on why it won’t happen. Not sure why you’re try to prove him a liar.

They had a big announcement at the end of last year didn’t they? Not the 16k rising to 25k Tim was talking about and he dismissed any possibility of that from day one. That’s the thing he’s been most consistent on in fact.

He hasn't been consistently clear, has he? Hence he wouldn't have told the fans forum he did about it, hence I wouldn't have been quoting him saying that.

If he was being consistently clear about it never happening, why was a 3 year plan submitted to the council that included a groundshare with CCFC?

I have proved it hasn't always been a straight out "never going to happen" from his side like you seem to be trying to prove and that there was a point it changed. Why's that?

 

[skybluetony176]

If you read all his statements you will see he chooses his words very carefully.

Presumably Sharpe wanting nothing to do with the football club is why our ticket office is based there and why the football league were shown around.

Yes he has. Not sure why you’re not taking note of them.

He’s never said he doesn’t want anything to do with the football club so I’m not sure why you’re fabricating that he has.The ticket office doesn’t need to involve SISU. Redevelopment of BPA as a joint venture would be a different matter.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Yes and between Sharpe making his comments that you’ve quoted and the comments I’ve quoted Sharpe has taken ownership of the head lease but still hasn’t changed his tune on dealing with SISU. He’s also never once linked it to his own plans. His plans for the BPA and SISU’s were never the same according to the article everyone wet themselves over in the article. I remember posters clambering over themselves trying to prove that a 25k stadium would fit on the site.

He’s been consistently clear on why it won’t happen. Not sure why you’re try to prove him a liar.

They had a big announcement at the end of last year didn’t they? Not the 16k rising to 25k Tim was talking about and he dismissed any possibility of that from day one. That’s the thing he’s been most consistent on in fact.

Reading between the lines, I think they would work with SISU, if it wouldn't jeapordise their own relationship with Coventry City Council. I don't blame him / them for taking that stance, but I'm not so sure it's as black & white as no, never.

(I always thought the Butts would make for our own Withdean - a temporary solution until we actually sorted our own ground)

 

[Nick]

Reading between the lines, I think they would work with SISU, if it wouldn't jeapordise their own relationship with Coventry City Council. I don't blame him / them for taking that stance, but I'm not so sure it's as black & white as no, never.

(I always thought the Butts would make for our own Withdean - a temporary solution until we actually sorted our own ground)

I don't think would blame him. He is rightly putting himself and his plans for Cov Rugby Club first. Fair play to him.

It has never been "no never" from his side either. The council confirmed they received a plan from him that included a groundshare with the club.

 

[skybluetony176]

He hasn't been consistently clear, has he? Hence he wouldn't have told the fans forum he did about it, hence I wouldn't have been quoting him saying that.

If he was being consistently clear about it never happening, why was a 3 year plan submitted to the council that included a groundshare with CCFC?

I have proved it hasn't always been a straight out "never going to happen" from his side like you seem to be trying to prove. Why's that?

What three year plan submitted to the council?

 

[Nick]

What three year plan submitted to the council?

The one that he submitted that upset the council after he told them "it was out of the question". Then they tried to change the lease.

It was almost as if they were upset / bothered by him submitting that after telling them it wouldn't happen.

 

[Otis]

Reading between the lines, I think they would work with SISU, if it wouldn't jeapordise their own relationship with Coventry City Council. I don't blame him / them for taking that stance, but I'm not so sure it's as black & white as no, never.

(I always thought the Butts would make for our own Withdean - a temporary solution until we actually sorted our own ground)

And 110% (in football parlance) more preferable to Nuneaton.

 

[skybluetony176]

Reading between the lines, I think they would work with SISU, if it wouldn't jeapordise their own relationship with Coventry City Council. I don't blame him / them for taking that stance, but I'm not so sure it's as black & white as no, never.

(I always thought the Butts would make for our own Withdean - a temporary solution until we actually sorted our own ground)

That’s an opinion rather than reading between the lines and even if Sharpe would consider it I doubt he’d get the backing of the CRFC board to do it. The possibility was clearly explored (when Anderson was here IIRC) even then CCFC was saying one thing about how the development would take shape and CRFC were saying something else. I would think that experience alone is more likely to have forced Sharpe to take the stance he did. You could argue that CRFC we’re being taken for a ride as part of a game of bluff between SISU and CCC. That would certainly piss me of enough to take the stance that I wouldn’t get involved with CCFC while SISU are involved.

 

[skybluetony176]

The one that he submitted that upset the council after he told them "it was out of the question". Then they tried to change the lease.

It was almost as if they were upset / bothered by him submitting that after telling them it wouldn't happen.

What three year plan?

 

[Nick]

What three year plan?

The one that Jon Sharpe submitted to the council that included a groundshare. The one that pissed the council off because he had verbally told them a groundshare was "out of the question" so they tried to insert a clause into the lease to prevent it.

It's weird how the groundshare bit bothered them, isn't it? Even more so that Duggins said the legal action had to be stopped before a groundshare at the Butts would be considered and for "dialogue to be started".

So yes, the council were involved as originally said.

 

[skybluetony176]

The one that Jon Sharpe submitted to the council that included a groundshare. The one that pissed the council off because he had verbally told them a groundshare was "out of the question" so they tried to insert a clause into the lease to prevent it.

It's weird how the groundshare bit bothered them, isn't it? Even more so that Duggins said the legal action had to be stopped before a groundshare at the Butts would be considered and for "dialogue to be started".

So yes, the council were involved as originally said.

What three year plan?

 

[Nick]

What three year plan?

I don't think I could make it any simpler.

You saying the same thing over and over again isn't going to get different answer.

Do you want the tracking label from it being posted or something? I'd bet SISU have a scan of it ready to give the EFL when they ask about a move to somewhere in Coventry.

 

[mark82]

Coventry United groundshare with CRFC. Not sure if that is a long term agreement?

In terms of what Sharp said, I think his talk about not dealing with Sisu were in relation to co-ownership of the ground rather than having them as a short term tenant.