Ann Lucas (2 Viewers)

[rob9872]

Need to start a Lexit campaign.

I prefer 'Lunt'

 

---

[rob9872]

Gilbert complained about my twitter post so I'm on a 12 hour ban

I think he took more offence at me saying he was an appalling journalist than the part where I said that I hoped Lucas would be dead from booze and fags before she became mayor.

 

[Johnnythespider]

Gilbert complained about my twitter post so I'm on a 12 hour ban

I think he took more offence at me saying he was an appalling journalist than the part where I said that I hoped Lucas would be dead from booze and fags before she became mayor.

Harsh, but fair

 

[skyblueeyesrevisited]

John Steed, Miss Moneypenny ....

Aren’t they both dead?

 

[Johnnythespider]

Aren’t they both dead?

Hat stands don't die they go into politics

 

[Westendlad]

She had some girl due to bring some over from Syria but some bastard stopped her...:angelic:

The fags with the tips chopped off ?

 

[sw88]

Can we vote in marlon King to be her deputy

 

[Magwitch]

Not necessarily, she's a Labour councillor in Coventry. People in Coventry don't read manifestos, they just vote Labour, no questions asked. If you pinned a red rosette on a broken hat stand most people would still vote for it.
My Father-in-law is a prime example of it. Always moaned about Lucas and the sale of the Ricoh, all the councillors that voted in favour, the WMCA. He moans about it all. But ask him who he voted for...... "Same party I've always voted for my whole life!!"

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

But seriously if you had a choice between a broken hat stand or Theresa May who would you vote for ?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Large numbers didn’t/don’t support wasps or even like rugby.

So what’s the difference? Other than not being owned by Sisu?

And even less support w***s so why are they bending over backwards to help/support them? They're not even from this city. At least CCFC are!

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Or even like Rugby, and probably 0.1% are legit wasps fans. It's a sporting stadium that should be home to Coventry teams.

Which is exactly why the council should be doing everything it can to ensure the club stays in business and stays in Coventry. Stop thinking of it as a football club and think of it as a business that employs local people, generates millions for the local economy and is one of the most high profile things nationally and internationally we have in the city.

Was listening to the news on CWR last night and the council are meeting with Aldi as they are talking about closing a single store in Coventry yet they refuse to even meet with the football club.

People seem to have either very short or selective memories. As I put above, in the past the council HAVE supported the football club - far more so than any other sporting team in the city.

They took on a HUGE financial burden and risk in ensuring the Ricoh was built in the first place - they didn't have to do that. So the issue we're seeing this week with the EFL wanting clarity on where we're playing would've occurred 15-20 years ago because we'd have not owned HR and the rent on that would've been unaffordable, but the Ricoh wouldn't even have been an option because it would never have been built.

In fact it's far more likely that was massively outside the council jurisdiction and remit. And the reason they did that was because those in charge of the club made absolutely stupid decisons in selling HR before they'd got everything in place to start building the new one - the sale of HR should only have been done as a means of financing the final stages of construction of when it was inevitable the Ricoh would be built, not at the start to do groundwork surveys on a pipe dream.

As I said, were the council offered to talk on the financial burden to get BPA finished? Wouldn't cost anywhere near as much.

chiefdave - the point is I AM thinking of it like a business, not a football club. The problem I see is that too many people are looking at it as a fan, not objectively as a business. The council haven't taken on huge loans like this to attract companies with much bigger worldwide reputations and would employ even more people than the club. They've lobbied for regional/national/European funding and grants, but not taken on the burden themselves. If other businesses of a similar size as CCFC had taken the kind of stance SISU had I dare say the council would have got them to take their business elsewhere. Offices and manufacturers have closed in this city who employed far more people that CCFC do and although the council has attempted to convince them to stay they've not gone anyway near as far out of there way as they have in the past in trying to get CCFC staying in the city.

I'll also point out I've said elsewhere that the bias shown towards Wasps since the council sold them the stadium leaves a very bad taste in the mouth and they should be more impartial now. Their treatment of the club by the council is down to SISU's involvement, but that reaction is due to SISU's treatment of them over the stadium. Should Wasps do the same they'd get the same treatment and probably worse I've no doubt. Remember the council were fully supportive of the SISU takeover, which supposedly without the club would've gone out of business.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

But seriously if you had a choice between a broken hat stand or Theresa May who would you vote for ?

How would I tell the difference?

 

[chiefdave]

They took on a HUGE financial burden and risk in ensuring the Ricoh was built in the first place - they didn't have to do that. So the issue we're seeing this week with the EFL wanting clarity on where we're playing would've occurred 15-20 years ago because we'd have not owned HR and the rent on that would've been unaffordable, but the Ricoh wouldn't even have been an option because it would never have been built.

The council didn't take a huge financial burden, the amount of there own money they put in to the project was minimal. We also wouldn't have been in this position 15-20 years ago as despite having sold HR we had a buy back option.

If you cast your mind back you'll recall the absolute panic the council went in to when McGinnity suggested it might be better for the club to exercise that option rather than move to the Ricoh. Completely coincidentally it was at that point McGinnity's company got a big contract for work at the Ricoh.

chiefdave - the point is I AM thinking of it like a business, not a football club. The problem I see is that too many people are looking at it as a fan, not objectively as a business. The council haven't taken on huge loans like this to attract companies with much bigger worldwide reputations and would employ even more people than the club.

The council can and have bailed out other businesses. In any case nobody is suggesting the council pump millions in to the club, merely that they actually engage in conversation and do what they can to assist.

To give an example the council are prepared to have meetings with Aldi when they mention closing one store in Coventry but refuse to meet with the club when it is in danger of ceasing to exist. That for me is a clear dereliction of duty.

 

[Nick]

People seem to have either very short or selective memories. As I put above, in the past the council HAVE supported the football club - far more so than any other sporting team in the city.

They took on a HUGE financial burden and risk in ensuring the Ricoh was built in the first place - they didn't have to do that. So the issue we're seeing this week with the EFL wanting clarity on where we're playing would've occurred 15-20 years ago because we'd have not owned HR and the rent on that would've been unaffordable, but the Ricoh wouldn't even have been an option because it would never have been built.

In fact it's far more likely that was massively outside the council jurisdiction and remit. And the reason they did that was because those in charge of the club made absolutely stupid decisons in selling HR before they'd got everything in place to start building the new one - the sale of HR should only have been done as a means of financing the final stages of construction of when it was inevitable the Ricoh would be built, not at the start to do groundwork surveys on a pipe dream.

As I said, were the council offered to talk on the financial burden to get BPA finished? Wouldn't cost anywhere near as much.

chiefdave - the point is I AM thinking of it like a business, not a football club. The problem I see is that too many people are looking at it as a fan, not objectively as a business. The council haven't taken on huge loans like this to attract companies with much bigger worldwide reputations and would employ even more people than the club. They've lobbied for regional/national/European funding and grants, but not taken on the burden themselves. If other businesses of a similar size as CCFC had taken the kind of stance SISU had I dare say the council would have got them to take their business elsewhere. Offices and manufacturers have closed in this city who employed far more people that CCFC do and although the council has attempted to convince them to stay they've not gone anyway near as far out of there way as they have in the past in trying to get CCFC staying in the city.

I'll also point out I've said elsewhere that the bias shown towards Wasps since the council sold them the stadium leaves a very bad taste in the mouth and they should be more impartial now. Their treatment of the club by the council is down to SISU's involvement, but that reaction is due to SISU's treatment of them over the stadium. Should Wasps do the same they'd get the same treatment and probably worse I've no doubt. Remember the council were fully supportive of the SISU takeover, which supposedly without the club would've gone out of business.

Ironic you talk about selective memories!

 

[SkyBlueZack]

People seem to have either very short or selective memories. As I put above, in the past the council HAVE supported the football club - far more so than any other sporting team in the city.

They took on a HUGE financial burden and risk in ensuring the Ricoh was built in the first place - they didn't have to do that. So the issue we're seeing this week with the EFL wanting clarity on where we're playing would've occurred 15-20 years ago because we'd have not owned HR and the rent on that would've been unaffordable, but the Ricoh wouldn't even have been an option because it would never have been built.

In fact it's far more likely that was massively outside the council jurisdiction and remit. And the reason they did that was because those in charge of the club made absolutely stupid decisons in selling HR before they'd got everything in place to start building the new one - the sale of HR should only have been done as a means of financing the final stages of construction of when it was inevitable the Ricoh would be built, not at the start to do groundwork surveys on a pipe dream.

As I said, were the council offered to talk on the financial burden to get BPA finished? Wouldn't cost anywhere near as much.

chiefdave - the point is I AM thinking of it like a business, not a football club. The problem I see is that too many people are looking at it as a fan, not objectively as a business. The council haven't taken on huge loans like this to attract companies with much bigger worldwide reputations and would employ even more people than the club. They've lobbied for regional/national/European funding and grants, but not taken on the burden themselves. If other businesses of a similar size as CCFC had taken the kind of stance SISU had I dare say the council would have got them to take their business elsewhere. Offices and manufacturers have closed in this city who employed far more people that CCFC do and although the council has attempted to convince them to stay they've not gone anyway near as far out of there way as they have in the past in trying to get CCFC staying in the city.

I'll also point out I've said elsewhere that the bias shown towards Wasps since the council sold them the stadium leaves a very bad taste in the mouth and they should be more impartial now. Their treatment of the club by the council is down to SISU's involvement, but that reaction is due to SISU's treatment of them over the stadium. Should Wasps do the same they'd get the same treatment and probably worse I've no doubt. Remember the council were fully supportive of the SISU takeover, which supposedly without the club would've gone out of business.

Haven't you put on another thread it didn't cost the taxpayer much? So what is this HUGE financial burden they took on? The council used the club to enable regeneration of that part of the city at very little cost. Then charged the club way too much rent, refused to discuss lowering the rent, before SISU. In what way has the council been supportive of the football club? It's always used the club for it's own purposes, just like SISU. They're all one and the same.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

The council didn't take a huge financial burden, the amount of there own money they put in to the project was minimal. We also wouldn't have been in this position 15-20 years ago as despite having sold HR we had a buy back option.

If you cast your mind back you'll recall the absolute panic the council went in to when McGinnity suggested it might be better for the club to exercise that option rather than move to the Ricoh. Completely coincidentally it was at that point McGinnity's company got a big contract for work at the Ricoh.

The council can and have bailed out other businesses. In any case nobody is suggesting the council pump millions in to the club, merely that they actually engage in conversation and do what they can to assist.

To give an example the council are prepared to have meetings with Aldi when they mention closing one store in Coventry but refuse to meet with the club when it is in danger of ceasing to exist. That for me is a clear dereliction of duty.

No, the council took out loans to help pay for it - that is taking on a financial risk. HR had a buy-back option that the club couldn't afford to pay - it'd run out of money to buy it back. Are you suggesting the council should've bought it for them? The Ricoh was agreed by the council due to the larger redevelopment and regeneration it could provide as an entertainment complex - it was intended to be far more than just a football stadium and if it had just been that I don't think the council would have got involved.

Are you saying that the council hasn't engaged in conversation over numerous years? Did they not spend ages talking to them about rent reductions etc when the clubs owners threatened to move out and build their own stadium, only to have SISU constantly change their demands and sue them ? Did they not speak to them the last time we ran the risk of being homeless and agreed a new deal? Tell me if the council are still talking to Aldi in 5 years time about this store closing, going round in perpetual circles because of Aldi's greed.

 

[Nick]

Haven't you put on another thread it didn't cost the taxpayer much? So what is this HUGE financial burden they took on? The council used the club to enable regeneration of that part of the city at very little cost. Then charged the club way too much rent, refused to discuss lowering the rent, before SISU. In what way has the council been supportive of the football club? It's always used the club for it's own purposes, just like SISU. They're all one and the same.

He has just contradicted himself. Getting a bit obvious about it too

 

[SkyBlueZack]

What loans did they take out? The £21 million from Yorkshire Bank?

 

[Nick]

No, the council took out loans to help pay for it - that is taking on a financial risk. HR had a buy-back option that the club couldn't afford to pay - it'd run out of money to buy it back. Are you suggesting the council should've bought it for them? The Ricoh was agreed by the council due to the larger redevelopment and regeneration it could provide as an entertainment complex - it was intended to be far more than just a football stadium and if it had just been that I don't think the council would have got involved.

Are you saying that the council hasn't engaged in conversation over numerous years? Did they not spend ages talking to them about rent reductions etc when the clubs owners threatened to move out and build their own stadium, only to have SISU constantly change their demands and sue them ? Did they not speak to them the last time we ran the risk of being homeless and agreed a new deal? Tell me if the council are still talking to Aldi in 5 years time about this store closing, going round in perpetual circles because of Aldi's greed.

They refused rent reductions.

Who paid for those loans out of interest?

Who was being charged rates for the ricoh they shouldn't have been?

The council have no interest in the club, as said they are only bothered when it benefits them. The same reason they are balls deep in wasps now.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Haven't you put on another thread it didn't cost the taxpayer much? So what is this HUGE financial burden they took on? The council used the club to enable regeneration of that part of the city at very little cost. Then charged the club way too much rent, refused to discuss lowering the rent, before SISU. In what way has the council been supportive of the football club? It's always used the club for it's own purposes, just like SISU. They're all one and the same.

I said it didn't cost the taxpayer much, as in the money was not taken out of taxpayer fund. The council took out loans which was a massive and unnecessary burden for them. It COULD have cost the taxpayer, if SISU had managed to get the stadium for nothing.

They charged the club the same rent they were paying for HR from the housing association after they sold it.

See above for the ways they've supported the club. Have they done anywhere near as much for any other club in this city? No. I'm not saying they haven't used the club for their own purposes to promote the city where possible over the years when it's suited them.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

He has just contradicted himself. Getting a bit obvious about it too

No. Just understand the differences in how it's structured and who the burden falls upon.

 

[Nick]

I said it didn't cost the taxpayer much, as in the money was not taken out of taxpayer fund. The council took out loans which was a massive and unnecessary burden for them. It COULD have cost the taxpayer, if SISU had managed to get the stadium for nothing.

They charged the club the same rent they were paying for HR from the housing association after they sold it.

See above for the ways they've supported the club. Have they done anywhere near as much for any other club in this city? No. I'm not saying they haven't used the club for their own purposes to promote the city where possible over the years when it's suited them.

Why was it a massive burden? They just passed all the burden onto ccfc with silly high rent.

The council didn't take out loans, ACL did.

 

[Nick]

No. Just understand the differences in how it's structured and who the burden falls upon.

You obviously don't as it was structured so that ACL took out loans.

 

[chiefdave]

No, the council took out loans to help pay for it - that is taking on a financial risk.

The council took out loans which was a massive and unnecessary burden for them. It COULD have cost the taxpayer, if SISU had managed to get the stadium for nothing.

What loans did the council take out? Their own completion reports states they put in £10m themselves and nothing outstanding in loans. There was a bridging loan from Prudential but "This amount has been secured from Arena Coventry Limited through the payment of their lease premium".

HR had a buy-back option that the club couldn't afford to pay - it'd run out of money to buy it back. Are you suggesting the council should've bought it for them?

No I'm suggesting that the situation then would have been nothing like the situation now as there was a second stadium in the city and the club had an option to buy back that stadium. How they would have funded that doesn't come in to it. Although the council clearly felt the club could finance it somehow or they wouldn't have panicked so much when McGinnity suggested it.

The Ricoh was agreed by the council due to the larger redevelopment and regeneration it could provide as an entertainment complex - it was intended to be far more than just a football stadium and if it had just been that I don't think the council would have got involved.

The simple fact is that without Coventry City the stadium would never have been built. If you believe that the council would have built a stadium without the club being onboard there is no hope for you.

Are you saying that the council hasn't engaged in conversation over numerous years?

You seem to be struggling with basic comprehension. I'm saying a business that is of great value to the city is in danger of ceasing to exist and not only are the council not making any attempt to assist they are actively refusing to help.

They charged the club the same rent they were paying for HR from the housing association after they sold it.

This is, at best, hugely misleading. The figure used by the council when setting the rent was not purely the rent for HR. It included a huge annual penalty due to the delay in vacating HR. That delay of course was due to CCC failed to complete the Ricoh project on time.

 

[fernandopartridge]

People seem to have either very short or selective memories. As I put above, in the past the council HAVE supported the football club - far more so than any other sporting team in the city.

They took on a HUGE financial burden and risk in ensuring the Ricoh was built in the first place - they didn't have to do that. So the issue we're seeing this week with the EFL wanting clarity on where we're playing would've occurred 15-20 years ago because we'd have not owned HR and the rent on that would've been unaffordable, but the Ricoh wouldn't even have been an option because it would never have been built.

In fact it's far more likely that was massively outside the council jurisdiction and remit. And the reason they did that was because those in charge of the club made absolutely stupid decisons in selling HR before they'd got everything in place to start building the new one - the sale of HR should only have been done as a means of financing the final stages of construction of when it was inevitable the Ricoh would be built, not at the start to do groundwork surveys on a pipe dream.

As I said, were the council offered to talk on the financial burden to get BPA finished? Wouldn't cost anywhere near as much.

chiefdave - the point is I AM thinking of it like a business, not a football club. The problem I see is that too many people are looking at it as a fan, not objectively as a business. The council haven't taken on huge loans like this to attract companies with much bigger worldwide reputations and would employ even more people than the club. They've lobbied for regional/national/European funding and grants, but not taken on the burden themselves. If other businesses of a similar size as CCFC had taken the kind of stance SISU had I dare say the council would have got them to take their business elsewhere. Offices and manufacturers have closed in this city who employed far more people that CCFC do and although the council has attempted to convince them to stay they've not gone anyway near as far out of there way as they have in the past in trying to get CCFC staying in the city.

I'll also point out I've said elsewhere that the bias shown towards Wasps since the council sold them the stadium leaves a very bad taste in the mouth and they should be more impartial now. Their treatment of the club by the council is down to SISU's involvement, but that reaction is due to SISU's treatment of them over the stadium. Should Wasps do the same they'd get the same treatment and probably worse I've no doubt. Remember the council were fully supportive of the SISU takeover, which supposedly without the club would've gone out of business.

Have a day off council boy.

 

[oscillatewildly]

Can anybody else smell fags just looking at the picture?

And the rasping cackle that breaks into a coughing fit.

 

[TasmanSeaSkyBlue]

The Council Leader must look for a career/financial stream after their term ends. Follow the money. The Council Leader (Wank Title) can ignore what the voters would want and declare that they is doing the best for the Council financially & the city when the City is best known for its football club and Lady Godiva and the The Blitz. No sense of history, no sense of history and looking to keep their name in the history books as the person who saved Coventry from mediocre football clubs.

 

[TasmanSeaSkyBlue]

She's got some cheek. Came out with this on CWR "I desperately want to see my football team playing in my city". Maybe don't sell the stadium to a London rugby club then.

Bullshite!