Shame on Nuneaton & Bedworth (2 Viewers)

[Jack Griffin]

For not replying to an important and legitimate enquiry under the FOI act.

Time for the Nuneaton MP to speak, http://www.marcusjones.org.uk/ what is his point of view.

 

---

[jesus-wept]

Here here, I hope the trust and others swamp him with questions and remind him there;s an election in just over a year.

 

[chiefdave]

Think the Trust need to pressure N&B council.

Found this on gov.uk:
You should receive the information within 20 working days. If the organisation needs more time, they will contact you and tell you when you can expect the information.

Some sensitive information might not be available to members of the public. If this is the case, the organisation must tell you why they have withheld some or all of the information

You can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office

If they have just ignored the request then some pressure needs to be put on them, might be worth contacting Nuneaton Town as they might not be happy with SISU moving us into Nuneaton and may also put some pressure on the council.

 

[runner]

Couldn't agree more ... not good enough, everyone else has responded, it doesn't take long to say yes or no ?

 

[thegameaintstraight]

Couldn't agree more ... not good enough, everyone else has responded, it doesn't take long to say yes or no ?

Maybe they don't want to risk a battle with Joy's lawyers?

 

[Flying Fokker]

SISU rent boys: : 0

 

[Hobo]

Knee jerk to speculation folks?

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Pray tell, what in fact was this legitimate and important enquiry?

 

[fernandopartridge]

For not replying to an important and legitimate enquiry under the FOI act.

Time for the Nuneaton MP to speak, http://www.marcusjones.org.uk/ what is his point of view.

Why shame on them? They've given a holding response which they're allowed to do under the act.

 

[shmmeee]

Why shame on them? They've given a holding response which they're allowed to do under the act.

Not to the Trust AFAIK. And all that response says is "we don't give responses" surely that's not sufficient under the Act?

 

[fernandopartridge]

Not to the Trust AFAIK. And all that response says is "we don't give responses" surely that's not sufficient under the Act?

Seriously?

 

[shmmeee]

Seriously?

Yes seriously. You know more about local govt stuff like this than me. I was seriously asking if that's sufficient under the act?

Seems a bit too broad, but I'm always a bit of an idealist about govt transparency.

 

[Moff]

I'm always a bit of an idealist about govt transparency.

Yep Govt and transparency dont often fall in the same sentence!

 

[Skybluerevolution (Pt2)]

New ground in the same geographical area of the Ricoh - all our own revenues to invest into the team - where is the downside?

 

[valiant15]

New ground in the same geographical area of the Ricoh - all our own revenues to invest into the team - where is the downside?

Er its half the size of highfield road and its not Coventry.

 

[skybluetony176]

New ground in the same geographical area of the Ricoh - all our own revenues to invest into the team - where is the downside?

i think you may be getting ahead of yourself.

 

[shmmeee]

New ground in the same geographical area of the Ricoh - all our own revenues to invest into the team - where is the downside?

Hard to say without any actual plans TBH. Personally it's not Cov for me, however that's very subjective. There are serious questions about finance and capacity though going forward. Also about ownership of both the ground and the revenues themselves.

Will we end up with another stadium management company (one not owned by Coventry people)? Will rent be controlled? Will the project attract the kind of funding needed with an established competitor two minutes away? What will the cost of finance be and over what period? How will that compare to the the revenues?

Part of the problem is you only want answers to those questions if a) you're planning to build it and b) you're interested in the long term health of the club.

 

[Danceswithhorses]

New ground in the same geographical area of the Ricoh - all our own revenues to invest into the team - where is the downside?

Apart from the mineshafts, bogs, poor infrastructure, unhappy local residents, addition to already massive debts, prefab stadium with a low capacity....what are the downsides ?

 

[chiefdave]

Yes seriously. You know more about local govt stuff like this than me. I was seriously asking if that's sufficient under the act?

Seems a bit too broad, but I'm always a bit of an idealist about govt transparency.

Found this online:

If your request is turned down under the EIRs, the authority must apply a public interest test to demonstrate that it is in the public interest for the information to be refused (which is a very high hurdle, as remember that there is a presumption in favour of disclosure in both the FOI Act and the EIRs).

If your request is treated under the FOI Act, most exemptions need a public interest test as well, although some are absolute exemptions and there is no need for the authority to apply a public interest test.

The public interest test should be a balancing exercise of whether the public interest is best served by disclosure or exempting. A separate public interest test should be done for each exemption applied.

An example might be if you asked for information relating to land prices that could in the future be subject to compulsory purchase. If using the EIRs the authority would have to apply a public interest test in any event. If using the FOI the authority could apply the Section 43 relating to commercial interests. The authority would have to weigh up the public interest in each instance and give sound reasons. It is not enough for the authority to say that it believes the public interest lies in exempting; they have to say why.

EIR is the term for allowed exceptions. They could make an exception for commercial sensitivity but that would have to relate to specific points and they would have to justify when that exemption applies and why it isn't in the public interest to release the information. In our case in my opinion N&B could not refuse to confirm if they have been speaking with SISU but could make a case to not give details of any specific site, which wasn't asked for anyway.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Yes seriously. You know more about local govt stuff like this than me. I was seriously asking if that's sufficient under the act?

Seems a bit too broad, but I'm always a bit of an idealist about govt transparency.

No, it most certainly is not!

 

[fernandopartridge]

Found this online:



EIR is the term for allowed exceptions. They could make an exception for commercial sensitivity but that would have to relate to specific points and they would have to justify when that exemption applies and why it isn't in the public interest to release the information. In our case in my opinion N&B could not refuse to confirm if they have been speaking with SISU but could make a case to not give details of any specific site, which wasn't asked for anyway.

Like I said yesterday - there is nothing stopping N&BBC providing a censured response to protect maintain commercial confidence with SISU. They still need to respond either way with a clear statement that they are or are not responding.

 

[robbieray]

Theres a perfect stadium not far away

 

[Skybluerevolution (Pt2)]

And we never filled Highfield Road (even in the prem) - it's a modular design and the capacity can be increased if needed. Coventry City Council will not allow another stadium in Coventry - so therefore what options does the club have, it is clear we need the revenues to compete with other teams, especially if we want to play in the prem ever again, and as I understand it ACL are not prepared to sell the Ricoh to the club...so what would you suggest?

 

[shmmeee]

And we never filled Highfield Road (even in the prem) - it's a modular design and the capacity can be increased if needed. Coventry City Council will not allow another stadium in Coventry - so therefore what options does the club have, it is clear we need the revenues to compete with other teams, especially if we want to play in the prem ever again, and as I understand it ACL are not prepared to sell the Ricoh to the club...so what would you suggest?

Who says CCC wouldn't accept it?

ACL can't sell, but have offered rental terms.

At least read up a bit before posting.

 

[italiahorse]

And we never filled Highfield Road (even in the prem) - it's a modular design and the capacity can be increased if needed. Coventry City Council will not allow another stadium in Coventry - so therefore what options does the club have, it is clear we need the revenues to compete with other teams, especially if we want to play in the prem ever again, and as I understand it ACL are not prepared to sell the Ricoh to the club...so what would you suggest?

Long Lease and negotiate the incomes = Premiership ready stadium and fan base.

Surely you don't want Sisu to get them for nothing after doing absolutely nothing to develope them ?

 

[Skybluerevolution (Pt2)]

i think you may be getting ahead of yourself.

In what respects?

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Who says CCC wouldn't accept it?

ACL can't sell, but have offered rental terms.

At least read up a bit before posting.

Otium don't want a rental agreement though for the Ricoh they have said this.

 

[chiefdave]

Coventry City Council will not allow another stadium in Coventry - so therefore what options does the club have, it is clear we need the revenues to compete with other teams, especially if we want to play in the prem ever again, and as I understand it ACL are not prepared to sell the Ricoh to the club...so what would you suggest?

Where did Coventry City Council state they would not allow another stadium in Coventry? They can't turn down a planning application without a valid reason and 'we don't like SISU' is not a valid reason. Even if CCC did turn it down the appeal process would take it out of the hands of CCC.

Why do we need to own the stadium to get revenues? Past ACL rent offers have included access to matchday revenues, the new stadium will not have a casino, exhibition hall etc so we won't get additional revenues from other events at a new stadium.

ACL don't own the Ricoh to sell it to SISU. They own the lease and SISU have never made an offer to buy it. They did make an offer to buy the Higgs 50% which was accepted but SISU never completed hence why Higgs are taking legal action to recover their costs. They have never bid for the 50% share owned by CCC nor have they made an offer to CCC for purchase of the freehold.

The obvious solution here is to purchase the 50% owned by Higgs. That puts SISU in a much stronger postion when agreeing a new deal for CCFC. Then purchase the 50% off CCC, pay off the loan and restructure the lease to a rolling lease with peppercorn rent. SISU / CCFC then get all the revenues from the Ricoh and CCC retain the security of owning the freehold so that SISU can't sell it off or load debt against it.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Have they asked CCC I suspect the answer is NO.
They want nothing to do with Coventry why do people think that is irrelevant? to me Cov or no where so AFC here i come.

And when we were in the Prem there wasn't a lot of clubs who could fill their grounds?

And we never filled Highfield Road (even in the prem) - it's a modular design and the capacity can be increased if needed. Coventry City Council will not allow another stadium in Coventry - so therefore what options does the club have, it is clear we need the revenues to compete with other teams, especially if we want to play in the prem ever again, and as I understand it ACL are not prepared to sell the Ricoh to the club...so what would you suggest?

 

[Skybluerevolution (Pt2)]

Who says CCC wouldn't accept it?

ACL can't sell, but have offered rental terms.

At least read up a bit before posting.

Coventry City Council would not be allowed to accept the building of another large stadium within it's boundaries, because of planning ecological and sustainability issues - and even if they could do you honestly believe they would give CCFC planning permission?

CCFC don't want to rent - they want the freehold so they can invest in the team/club - and at some point sell a tangible asset.

Stop trying being patronizing - especially when it seems you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[shmmeee]

Otium don't want a rental agreement though for the Ricoh they have said this.

I know. Was just pointing out that ACL as an organisation haven't been against a return on a deal within their power. CCC need to discuss a sale (and according to their answers to the Trust are still willing)

Q2. Have the council excluded any potential option to settle the dispute?

A2. No. Many options of course would require the consent of the other shareholder.

 

[chiefdave]

Coventry City Council would not be allowed to accept the building of another large stadium within it's boundaries, because of planning ecological and sustainability issues - and even if they could do you honestly believe they would give CCFC planning permission?

But none of that would apply to a greenfield site less than 2 miles from the Ricoh? Why would there be ecological issues building on a site in Coventry? Most sites in Coventry would see a new stadium being built of industrial land no longer in use, are you saying that all those sites will now be left as wasteland as they can never be used for anything else? Any issue you raise along those lines the same will apply to a stadium in the 'Coventry area'. CCC can't turn down an application without reason and an appeal would see the issue taken out of their hands.

CCFC don't want to rent - they want the freehold so they can invest in the team/club - and at some point sell a tangible asset.

Can you would explain why ownership of a stadium freehold means they will invest in the team / club? They don't need to own the freehold at the Ricoh to access all the revenues, in fact the freehold generates zero revenue. I'm not sure how you are coming to the conclusion that owning the freehold will lead to investment in the team / club given that Joy has clearly stated that she has no interest in football and wants to get her, and her investors, money back.

 

[shmmeee]

Coventry City Council would not be allowed to accept the building of another large stadium within it's boundaries, because of planning ecological and sustainability issues - and even if they could do you honestly believe they would give CCFC planning permission?

CCFC don't want to rent - they want the freehold so they can invest in the team/club - and at some point sell a tangible asset.

Stop trying being patronizing - especially when it seems you do not know what you are talking about.

I'm not being patronising. Talking about ACL "selling the Ricoh" shows a massive ignorance of the core issues.

So a new ground can't be built in Coventry due to having another one so close, but one can be built 2.2 miles away?

Try telling the numerous cities in this country with 2 stadiums of that size that you can't do it.

 

[Snozz_is_god]

they want the freehold so they can invest in the team/club

Realy? I don't think you know what you're talking about pal, sound like you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

They want the Ricoh to be able to recoup the money they've supposedly 'invested', nowt to do with the football club, that's just a means to an end.

 

[Skybluerevolution (Pt2)]

Where did Coventry City Council state they would not allow another stadium in Coventry? They can't turn down a planning application without a valid reason and 'we don't like SISU' is not a valid reason. Even if CCC did turn it down the appeal process would take it out of the hands of CCC.

Why do we need to own the stadium to get revenues? Past ACL rent offers have included access to matchday revenues, the new stadium will not have a casino, exhibition hall etc so we won't get additional revenues from other events at a new stadium.

ACL don't own the Ricoh to sell it to SISU. They own the lease and SISU have never made an offer to buy it. They did make an offer to buy the Higgs 50% which was accepted but SISU never completed hence why Higgs are taking legal action to recover their costs. They have never bid for the 50% share owned by CCC nor have they made an offer to CCC for purchase of the freehold.

The obvious solution here is to purchase the 50% owned by Higgs. That puts SISU in a much stronger postion when agreeing a new deal for CCFC. Then purchase the 50% off CCC, pay off the loan and restructure the lease to a rolling lease with peppercorn rent. SISU / CCFC then get all the revenues from the Ricoh and CCC retain the security of owning the freehold so that SISU can't sell it off or load debt against it.

Where does it state that CCC would welcome another stadium? I think you will find it would be denied on the grounds of Sustainability, Ecological and Environment issues - bearing in mind that public money has been used in the building of The Ricoh, I would suggest that the Government would support any decision that CCC planning may come to on the above grounds.

Past ACL offers are exactly that PAST - we are talking about the hear and now, FFP will come into play if we are to get promoted to the the prem - you do not know what the new stadium will or will not have - unless you have seen the plans? so I think you are unable to comment on what income stream may or may not be available to CCFC going forward.

The obvious solution to me is that CCFC move on with the new ground and get away from all this nonsense and leave ACL/CCC to do what they think is best with a 30000 seat football arena - with no team.