torchomatic
Well-Known Member
You just LOVE this thread, don't you?
You just LOVE this thread, don't you?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
If you remember Wasps were playing the benevolent franchise rugby club and reached out to offer the CCFC academy to rent some of the planned facilities - this offer was made public on 2nd June 2016, around the time the plans were submitted.
The parties are different here but the premise is the same, Wasps had made some sort of agreement with the CSF prior to submitting the application.
Wasps submit plans for £7m training centre at CCFC Academy site
Wasps offer to help Coventry City Academy stay at Higgs Centre
Fergusons_Beard
Well-Known Member
Tony-How do you know it’s just two sheets of A4?
Because you believe what the Council said about it?
The same council that admitted talking to Wasps before we moved to Northampton?
The same council that sold a stadium built by and for CCFC to a Hedge fund owned Rugby Club from London?
Before accusing Dave of being in a cave I suggest you start by evolving your own opinion up from Neanderthal...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Fergusons_Beard
Well-Known Member
One rule for the Hedge-Fund owned Rugby Club from London and one for the 130 year old Coventry Football club......
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
In fairness, I'm not saying that really. I'm just saying that the idea that SISU should spend significant sums on something that is apparently a non-starter (local planning expert skybluetony176 has said it is) is a little off the mark.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Not just architects is it? There will be numerous reports and experts that need to be engaged. As everyone is keen to keep pointing out the difficulties with the site they will all need to be studied and plans devised to overcome the difficulties.
Just look on the trust timeline how much CCFC spent before there was any sign of work beginning at the Ricoh.
It will be a significant outlay which may all be for nothing if CCC won't release the land. You'd be crazy to do it that way round.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
What level of detail are you expecting when we're still at a stage before the pre-planning application process.
An enquiry is being made to see if the site, owned by the council, would be available for lease or purchase for a potential new stadium. It would be usual for that to be agreed and then the planning process, and therefore all the detail, worked on.
Harryshipman1998
Member
No I don't mate, however it would be a hell of a lot easier for me to get to. (If I believed it)
If the land is already ear marked for a special school. Why aren't the council saying that instead of bothering to belittle SISU's by the sound of it unprofessional approach?
Ah well to be fair to SISU I think their plan is working a treat look at the discussion it has generated here.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Millions. Ha ha ha.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
They could start by going public with this brilliant plan. Should it exist.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
An enquiry is being made so that SISU can say they've done something. We have had sketches for a ground since 2013, committees set up to help with its design etc etc...but no bid for land, no request for planning permission, no evidence of a serious attempt in 6 years. More effort has gone into the smoke and mirrors than to the construction. As before-either put some weight behind the enquiries or admit it's bollocks.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I don’t. That’s why I said unless SISU can prove otherwise. Nothing stopping them releasing a statement with some PDF’s is there? I’d welcome it in fact.
I’m well aware of what the council has said and done. I’m also well aware that SISU have trodden this path before so you’ll excuse me if I don’t go all RFC over it given our previous experience. Let’s see something of substance.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Surely SISU understand the cost of this from last time they claimed to do it? Oh wait. Forgot about the FOI’s.
Woodlands for all intents and purposes is a greenfield site. Asbestos in the existing buildings is about as complicated as it’s going to get, assuming that wasn’t already taken care of when it was still operating as a school. I remember RBC starting to asbestos surveys on public buildings including schools in the 90’s so I would think it’s likely already taken care of. The gas works was a heavy industry site that was heavily contaminated over decades requiring specialists. If you’re going to compare eggs with something compare it with another egg.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Just going what the trust have on their Ricoh timeline and the amount spent before ground was broken. As you have more accurate figures perhaps you could give us a breakdown.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Again, why the expectation that the football club should have to follow a different procedure, and as a consequence cost, to everyone else? You seem to be reveling in the fact the council are 'getting one over' on SISU but all they are doing in reality is giving SISU more evidence to hand to the EFL to justify us moving away.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Doubt it’s on wiki to be fair
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
There was decontamination work and the gas holders were demolished in 2002, that all happened before the land was even purchased from British Gas.
Gas tower's going, going, gone!
How the Ricoh Arena deal was almost scuppered before building started
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Because Woodlands is a site that’s had decades of heavy industrial use on it, has towers to be demolished, requires major decontamination? If you want accuracies start by comparing eggs with eggs. Woodlands is basically a greenfield site.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
It’s not. So you won’t be able to use it to check what I’ve said as you usually do.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
A few posts back it was going to cost a fortune to build at Woodlands because of what's on the site now its greenfield!
As I suggested previously look at the costs shown on the Trust website. Look when the money was spent and look when the decontamination was carried out as the decontamination seems to start after a significant amount of money had already been spent.
Once again I would ask that as you have more accurate figures you post them up for everyone to see and also explain why the football club should have to follow a different, more expensive, route than everyone else.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I think the point is that they are expected to follow the standard procedures the same as everyone else. No evidence as yet that they’ve done that. You are the one making it about the council not me. I’m making it about the parallels of what happened last time. Forgive me if I don’t go RFC over it, you knock yourself out if you want to. There’s zero evidence to show that they’ve done little more than a couple of pages more than they did last time we walked this path and all the evidence is that last time they did nothing of credibility. You do recall the results of all the rounds of FOI’s last time after they repeatedly claimed to be in consultation with local authorities, environmental agency etc? Why are you bending over backwards to add credibility to them based on previous experience? It defies logic. Let’s see something tangible from them and I’ll get behind it.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
As you keep ignoring the question I'm going to assume you don't actually have any figures.
Nobody is 'going RFC'. It is because of what happened last time I want the council to not dick about. I want this drawn to a conclusion as quickly as possible. Let me make it as simple as possible for you. In what scenario would we now be better off:
Scenario 1) March 2018 and SISU approach the council with a view to building a new stadium at Woodlands. The council is slow to respond, stalls and provides SISU with a mountain of evidence to take to
Scenario 2) March 2018 and SISU approach the council with a view to building a new stadium at Woodlands. The council say that won't be possible and give a clear reason that stands up to scrutiny. SISU have no evidence to take to the EFL demonstrating how they are being obstructed by the council. They also have to come up with an alternative plan.
Scenario 3) March 2018 and SISU approach the council with a view to building a new stadium at Woodlands. The council say we are fully behind that, negotiate a forward contact and we enter the pre-planning stage. SISU have no evidence to take to the EFL demonstrating how they are being obstructed by the council. They now have to start spending a significant sum on the planning process.
I would argue that scenario 1 is the worst possible for the club, we're in limbo and in danger of being moved out of the city. Scenario 2 would at least have been a definitive answer and a line gets drawn under that options. Scenario 3 is the best option IMO, it forces SISU to either move forward with a new stadium or admit it is BS. For some reason you seem to prefer we stick with the council messing around and more years of the same old crap.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Nope, it seems like the command has been sent out to just keep hammering on about planning and hope no difficult questions get asked of the council.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
What are your figures? What I found on sbt arena timeline is..
1998
31st May CCFC H Ltd accounts confirm outline planning permission received for new stadium at the Foleshill Gas works. Total costs expended to that date £150,526
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I’ve never claimed to have any figures. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist though to work out that a greenfield site with a few buildings on isn’t going to be anywhere near as expensive to develop at any stage from basic planning and consultation to completion as a heavy industrial site of the nature of the old gas works.
You’re trying to start history on the site with SISU 2 years after the event first started. When did sisu first identify the site? What did they originally identify it for? How was that received? Why was it received that way?
Are you suggesting that they didn’t know what would and wouldn’t be considered on the site now they’ve changed their minds on what they’ve identified the site for?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I couldn't care less what SISU did or didn't now. What I want is this whole thing to come to a close and the council pissing around is doing nothing but draw things out.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
And pretending that you want to build a ground on a site that you already know from previous enquires 2 years prior is highly unlikely for numerous reasons that you’ve already established isn’t pissing around and drawing things out?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Why haven’t you commented on a certain other thread Tony? Missed it? Why do you try a oneupmanship and patronising approach when basically you are a tad thick?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I've made it as simple as possible for you by laying out every way it could have been dealt with and shown how the way the council have chosen to go both plays in to SISUs hands and draws the whole thing out the longest. Which part is it you are struggling to comprehend?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Because it amuses me that it bothers you so much. Clearly you’re a Tad thicker than me as you’ve played your part in my amusement so willingly.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I would have thought most people on here would be bothered about the situation our club finds itself in. Think you'll find you're in a very small group in not caring about it or wanting it to be resolved as quickly as possible.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Over two years ago they first identified the site as a replacement for Ryton and joint academy. It was well received because it ties in with the councils long-standing plans for the site. Nothing has happened since on that. Now this. Who is drawing it out exactly? One plan well received, never followed up despite as I’ve said numerous times now was a good idea in the first place and possible. Now almost two and half years later this. Who is dawning it out exactly? I’ll meet you halfway if you like and agree both the council and SISU are. Now who’s been drawing it out the longest? This is even before you enter the discussion of if you believe they have any attention building a stadium anywhere at any point. I’ll put my cards on the table. I don’t believe they have. Do you?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The part where there's any illusion that SISU are actually committed to building a brand new stadium.