Yes you are right, there does seem to be an element of cost involved.
But I don't think it's just that.
There have been posts on here saying "what would you do if you were the owner?"
That implicitly implies "If you were the owner you would expect to be able to make your own choice over what to do!"
I think SISU after trying to negotiate a cheaper rent have realised that they don't want to rent but want to "own" along with all income streams.
They have futher realised that they don't need to own the Ricoh in particular - any stadium that the club are using will be just as valuable to them. An empty stadium is little use to anybody!
The councils animosity is understandable but lamentable. "We have built you a nice stadium we expect you to use that. Try snd get planning permission off us fot another one!". The truth is they are taking advantage of the clubs presence to finance the stadium - without the club it is unlikely to work! SISU do not care if it works or not without them, they don't need to bring the Ricoh down to make their alternative stadium work.
Lamentable as the council attitude is, it is that attitude that is solely responsible fot the new stadium being "just outside Coventry"rather thsn within. If the council could be expected to be impartial or better welcome a planning applicacation for a new stadium inside Coventry - SISU would probably be happy to build it there!
imp:
