Cov RFC do NOT want a merger with Wasps (5 Viewers)

[hutch1972]

Not sure why so many on here are against the Wasps deal.

It is good business for ACL which keeps them more financially solvent and more likely to strike a better deal with tenants
More ACL income means potentially better F&B negotiations
It increases the value of the Ricoh which could eventually see a takeover of the whole arena AND the club
Sixfields proved it is relatively easy to have 2 teams sharing one ground with a bit of fixture give and take
Coventry Rugby club is a dead duck already - there maybe some residual fondness for it but no one ever goes there.
There are a lot of joing marketing and sponsorship opportunities for both clubs

So Cov rfc is a dead duck is it ? try telling that to the people who are slowly turning it around from the shell that was left 4 or 5 years ago.
I cannot think of a more feck you i'm alright jack attitude towards one of our own citys sports teams.
In my opinion, should we sell any part of the stadium to what would be a franchise it would be up there with the worst decisions ever made by ccc.
Common sense should prevail here and blow this rediculous idea out of the water.

 

---

[Grendel]

SISU wouldn't return our club to the Ricoh under a rental agreement.....until it was the best option left.

SISU wouldn't pay for the Ricoh......how many options are left and is buying the Ricoh one of them?

As the Wasps fans are vehemently against a move I assume you oppose this 100%?

 

[Astute]

As the Wasps fans are vehemently against a move I assume you oppose this 100%?

If you were able to read and comprehend you wouldn't have to ask that question.

 

[skybluetony176]

As the Wasps fans are vehemently against a move I assume you oppose this 100%?

As the majority of Coventry fans were vehemently against the move to Suxfields and you paid to go I assume you were 100% behind the move?

 

[lordsummerisle]

SISU wouldn't return our club to the Ricoh under a rental agreement.....until it was the best option left.

SISU wouldn't pay for the Ricoh......how many options are left and is buying the Ricoh one of them?

ACL wouldn't under any circumstances allow the club back whilst the JR appeal was ongoing, nor under any circumstances allow a short-term rental deal, nor any match day F@B, nor would they deal with a third party moderator.

Things change on all sides.

 

[Grendel]

If you were able to read and comprehend you wouldn't have to ask that question.

So you would be 100% against this? You seem to be going all Ed Milliband on me here and incapable of saying yes or no.

 

[Grendel]

As the majority of Coventry fans were vehemently against the move to Suxfields and you paid to go I assume you were 100% behind the move?

A flawed logic. On that basis given the rapid attendance decline from day one back most fans would care where we play . Most fans who sit near me (including one very rabid anti sisu fan ) admitted to attending Sixfields at least once.

 

[MichaelCCFC]

So you would be 100% against this? You seem to be going all Ed Milliband on me here and incapable of saying yes or no.

So what's your take on acl-wasps then, G?

 

[letsallsingtogether]

It wasn't me

A flawed logic. On that basis given the rapid attendance decline from day one back most fans would care where we play . Most fans who sit near me (including one very rabid anti sisu fan ) admitted to attending Sixfields at least once.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Like the time we lost 4 hours of our lives listening to ML.

If the Wasps talks are just a negotiating tactic, would that not be construed as messing us all about and not taking negotiations seriously?

 

[skybluetony176]

A flawed logic. On that basis given the rapid attendance decline from day one back most fans would care where we play . Most fans who sit near me (including one very rabid anti sisu fan ) admitted to attending Sixfields at least once.

It's your logic, at least you admit it's flawed. It was a pointless post to make in the first place. I'm just gobsmacked that you're using a principle to have a go at someone after not using that same principle yourself.

 

[Grendel]

It's your logic, at least you admit it's flawed. It was a pointless post to make in the first place. I'm just gobsmacked that you're using a principle to have a go at someone after not using that same principle yourself.

I do agree with the principal as would any Wasp fan who still attended the Ricoh - they would do so not because they had a desire to go to Coventry but because they wanted to see their team

At the Ricoh I will go to pretty much all the games so by definition I prefer it to be at the Ricoh.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Yes but he is allowed you after all are a rabid sisu hater.
He on the other hand is rabid anti CCC/ACL .

It's your logic, at least you admit it's flawed. It was a pointless post to make in the first place. I'm just gobsmacked that you're using a principle to have a go at someone after not using that same principle yourself.

 

[Grendel]

It wasn't me

I know -- he has hair

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Who telling fibs????
Nobody likes that white elephant of a ground
Except me of coarse

I do agree with the principal as would any Wasp fan who still attended the Ricoh - they would do so not because they had a desire to go to Coventry but because they wanted to see their team

At the Ricoh I will go to pretty much all the games so by definition I prefer it to be at the Ricoh.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

wasn't BHSB then ether

I know -- he has hair

 

[Grendel]

Who telling fibs????
Nobody likes that white elephant of a ground
Except me of coarse

I have never said I do not like the Ground and have said the facility is superior to Highfield Road. What I have said is without having a stake in it it has no intrinsic value as a supporter.

 

[Grendel]

wasn't BHSB then ether

No - very slim chap - and in his late thirties at a guess

 

[letsallsingtogether]

I have never said I do not like the Ground and have said the facility is superior to Highfield Road. What I have said is without having a stake in it it has no intrinsic value as a supporter.

But who's fault is it that we don't own it?
Without the council and Higgs help we would have been homeless years ago.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Defiantly not BHSB then

No - very slim chap - and in his late thirties at a guess

 

[Grendel]

Defiantly not BHSB then

Nor me unfortunately

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

No - very slim chap - and in his late thirties at a guess

Definately not me then

 

[Astute]

So you would be 100% against this? You seem to be going all Ed Milliband on me here and incapable of saying yes or no.

Considering I have been saying that I don't want it to happen I don't understand why you are having a problem comprehending where I stand with this.

I will not start having a go at everyone concerned with this whilst we don't know any facts. What I do want is at least some secure long term agreement for us to play there. I don't want their supporters to have to travel a long way for games. But what is best for my club comes above what is best for theirs. If Wasps playing at the Ricoh was the piece of the jigsaw that secured our future at the Ricoh on a peppercorn rent or even to buy a stake or even the whole thing I could handle that. Not what I would vote for, but I want to see us with a secure future so we can start to rebuild. And it could be what is needed for SISU to be able to offload our club.

So not 100% against it, but not far from it until we know the details.

 

[Otis]

Considering I have been saying that I don't want it to happen I don't understand why you are having a problem comprehending where I stand with this.

I will not start having a go at everyone concerned with this whilst we don't know any facts. What I do want is at least some secure long term agreement for us to play there. I don't want their supporters to have to travel a long way for games. But what is best for my club comes above what is best for theirs. If Wasps playing at the Ricoh was the piece of the jigsaw that secured our future at the Ricoh on a peppercorn rent or even to buy a stake or even the whole thing I could handle that. Not what I would vote for, but I want to see us with a secure future so we can start to rebuild. And it could be what is needed for SISU to be able to offload our club.

So not 100% against it, but not far from it until we know the details.

No, Astute, you are wrong.

We should totally condemn it totally out of hand before knowing any facts of any deal whatsoever. We have a small piece of info that tell us very little and info that on the surface does sound unworkable, but it would be totally wrong of us to wait to hear more. Totally wrong. We need to make decisions now, this instance based on conjecture.

And anyone who believes they would be against it, if it is what we think it will be, but wants to just hear more just to make sure that it is what we are thinking it might be, needs to be completely slated and beaten over the head with a big stick.

I think we all think it will be bad if it is what we think it is going to be, but waiting to find out details and hear more so that we all have the full picture of what the proposal is, is obviously a totally laughable and ridiculous thing to do.

As Groucho Marx once most famously said, 'Whatever it is, I'm against it.'

 

[Astute]

No, Astute, you are wrong.

We should totally condemn it totally out of hand before knowing any facts of any deal whatsoever. We have a small piece of info that tell us very little and info that on the surface does sound unworkable, but it would be totally wrong of us to wait to hear more. Totally wrong. We need to make decisions now, this instance based on conjecture.

And anyone who believes they would be against it, if it is what we think it will be, but wants to just hear more just to make sure that it is what we are thinking it might be, needs to be completely slated and beaten over the head with a big stick.

I think we all think it will be bad if it is what we think it is going to be, but waiting to find out details and hear more so that we all have the full picture of what the proposal is, is obviously a totally laughable and ridiculous thing to do.

As Groucho Marx once most famously said, 'Whatever it is, I'm against it.'

But wasn't it Groucho Grendel that made the quote?

 

[torchomatic]

But when it is something as obvious as moving a team from London to Coventry then yes you should be against it. When the local Rugby club aren't happy about it then yes, you should be against it. This isn't an issue that needs thinking about really, is it? Everyone was up in arms about City moving to Northampton and everyone should feel the same about this. Not all the namby-pamby "well, let's see what the details are" attitude. Wasps fans don't want it to happen, Cov rugby don't really want it to happen and CCFC fans don't want it to happen - apart from MMM.

It only benefits Wasps and ACL.

As Groucho Marx once most famously said, 'Whatever it is, I'm against it.'

 

[MichaelCCFC]

I'm not sure where the disagreement is coming on this.

To be 100% clear, would it be fair to say: the acl-wasps plan as presented in the Cov Tel, if true, is one we disagree with. Through the CT publishing the story, Cov RFC, CCFC fans and Wasps fans have made clear their opposition to the plan as described in the CT. If acl announce a different plan we would then judge that on its merits but the current situation is the idea as published in the CT is one we oppose.

I would also stick with saying:

- acl-sisu should be stating that the Ricoh is the home of CCFC and there will be no more talk of a new stadium or a new anchor tenant but that acl-sisu will work together to build a successful CCFC which will benefit all parties
- sisu should confirm CCFC's future is at the Ricoh and that you will not build a new ground
- acl should tell Wasps or any other enquirers that they are welcome to play occasional games at the Ricoh but the Ricoh is the home of CCFC and we don't need a new anchor tenant
- and to both acl and sisu: sixfields proved fans do have power so start showing supporters some respect and stop playing games with our club!

 

[italiahorse]

I'm not sure where the disagreement is coming on this.

To be 100% clear, would it be fair to say: the acl-wasps plan as presented in the Cov Tel, if true, is one we disagree with. Through the CT publishing the story, Cov RFC, CCFC fans and Wasps fans have made clear their opposition to the plan as described in the CT. If acl announce a different plan we would then judge that on its merits but the current situation is the idea as published in the CT is one we oppose.

I would also stick with saying:

- acl-sisu should be stating that the Ricoh is the home of CCFC and there will be no more talk of a new stadium or a new anchor tenant but that acl-sisu will work together to build a successful CCFC which will benefit all parties
- sisu should confirm CCFC's future is at the Ricoh and that you will not build a new ground
- acl should tell Wasps or any other enquirers that they are welcome to play occasional games at the Ricoh but the Ricoh is the home of CCFC and we don't need a new anchor tenant
- and to both acl and sisu: sixfields proved fans do have power so start showing supporters some respect and stop playing games with our club!

-ACL can't confirm it's the home of CCFC because SISU say it is not.

-SISU have stated it is short term so ACL need to prepare for the future.

-Wasps should be considered as anchor tenant if CCFC continue to say they don't want to be. CCFC should be first choice but SISU need to want it.

-ACL are a business so SISU need to give them some respect. Don't forget there is still a court battle.

Some times you need to step back and see the bigger picture.

 

[italiahorse]

But when it is something as obvious as moving a team from London to Coventry then yes you should be against it. When the local Rugby club aren't happy about it then yes, you should be against it. This isn't an issue that needs thinking about really, is it? Everyone was up in arms about City moving to Northampton and everyone should feel the same about this. Not all the namby-pamby "well, let's see what the details are" attitude. Wasps fans don't want it to happen, Cov rugby don't really want it to happen and CCFC fans don't want it to happen - apart from MMM.

It only benefits Wasps and ACL.

It's in SISU's court.
This move to a permanent home for Wasps will happen if they don't show an interest in obtaining a share in ACL.

 

[torchomatic]

Respect?! SISU were rightly universally condemned (including by ACL who tried to sue NTFC) for moving the club to Northampton. Now ACL are in cahoots with a team based in Wycombe to move 75 miles to the Ricoh? Where's the difference? Wasps fans aren't happy, CRC fans aren't happy, most CCFC fans aren't happy? So where's ACL's respect for Wasps fans, Cov Rugby fans?

"Sometimes you need to step back and see the bigger picture"? You, Otis, Astute and others seem to twist things to suit. Bad for SISU to do it, OK for ACL to do exactly the same thing. Why not go on the Wasps forum and ask them to see "the bigger picture"?

-ACL can't confirm it's the home of CCFC because SISU say it is not.

-SISU have stated it is short term so ACL need to prepare for the future.

-Wasps should be considered as anchor tenant if CCFC continue to say they don't want to be. CCFC should be first choice but SISU need to want it.

-ACL are a business so SISU need to give them some respect. Don't forget there is still a court battle.

Some times you need to step back and see the bigger picture.

 

[Otis]

I'm not sure where the disagreement is coming on this.

To be 100% clear, would it be fair to say: the acl-wasps plan as presented in the Cov Tel, if true, is one we disagree with. Through the CT publishing the story, Cov RFC, CCFC fans and Wasps fans have made clear their opposition to the plan as described in the CT. If acl announce a different plan we would then judge that on its merits but the current situation is the idea as published in the CT is one we oppose.

I would also stick with saying:

- acl-sisu should be stating that the Ricoh is the home of CCFC and there will be no more talk of a new stadium or a new anchor tenant but that acl-sisu will work together to build a successful CCFC which will benefit all parties
- sisu should confirm CCFC's future is at the Ricoh and that you will not build a new ground
- acl should tell Wasps or any other enquirers that they are welcome to play occasional games at the Ricoh but the Ricoh is the home of CCFC and we don't need a new anchor tenant
- and to both acl and sisu: sixfields proved fans do have power so start showing supporters some respect and stop playing games with our club!

Yep, and there within is the crux of the matter. If true.

Think that people like myself are merely saying, let's see if this is the case. Let's have all the facts and see exactly what the deal is. We hear of negotiations, well negotiations are a case of someone putting forwards a proposal and then talks on the matter and usually there's some give and some take.

I can't really see ACL / CCC agreeing to anything that would compromise the football club and that would kick us out of the Ricoh. Be very surprised if that happened.

Just how many times in life have we all said 'Well, I never saw that coming?' Could certainly be said to be true of this Wasps taking over the Ricoh. I would never have imagined that in a month of Sundays.

Let's just wait and see if the deal is what on the surface we think it is.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Without getting in to the previous arguments isn't the key to all this getting CCFC/SISU to commit long term to a future at the Ricoh. They have to say to ACL they want to be there long term and mean it.

That will mean a change in stance from them because right now ownership is not on the table but some form of ownership could be in the future. Just to be crystal clear ownership of the stadium is not an necessity for CCFC but ownership of income rights are. Those can be acquired in many ways. If they need initially land value and income buy the Leisure land adjacent to the stadium and develop it. But the CCFC owners must say they want to be there long term, mean it and stop playing games with our club that they seem not to be very good at.

That one statement, if sincere, puts pressure on ACL to sit round the table and look at doing a deal long term. That does not exclude any other sporting outfit sharing the ground or even being joint anchor tenant. Modern stadiums need to be used more than 25 times a year.

It then allows fans to put pressure on both ACL & SISU. Right now the ACL get out clause is that CCFC have said vociferously and often they do not see their future to be at the Ricoh. CCFC's get out clause is they must have ownership which some seem to accept but never quantify why. CCFC say they will build elsewhere - its put up or shut up time - move on or commit to the Ricoh

ACL, CCC, Charity have never said they do not want CCFC there - they still haven't. But lets be clear ACL do not and never have run the Ricoh for the fans or even largely CCFC - they are not going to turn away enquiries or potential income. After 9 years of being there surely CCFC should have been more closely involved - they are not anchor tenants and have not been since 2012 - they are day renters.

To put any meaningful pressure on all parties you have to start at the right point I feel. First step is getting the club to say they want to be there long term.

Get that sorted and Wasps becomes far less of an issue for CCFC or ACL for that matter.

the clock is ticking................

 

[Otis]

But when it is something as obvious as moving a team from London to Coventry then yes you should be against it. When the local Rugby club aren't happy about it then yes, you should be against it. This isn't an issue that needs thinking about really, is it? Everyone was up in arms about City moving to Northampton and everyone should feel the same about this. Not all the namby-pamby "well, let's see what the details are" attitude. Wasps fans don't want it to happen, Cov rugby don't really want it to happen and CCFC fans don't want it to happen - apart from MMM.

It only benefits Wasps and ACL.

What is IT though Torch? We don't honestly know. People are just reacting to what small bit of information we have. If IT is what we think it is, then yes, I am totally against it.

We need to see exactly what IT is though and at the moment we hear of talks. Like I said on another post, negotiaions are just that, talks when proposals are put forwards and counter proposals may well result as a conclusion and upon considering everyone's views, including fans, may well end up diluted too.

We cannot say with 100% certainty what the outcome of this will be.

One thing I know is that Wasps fans are against any permanent move, but some have said they would be okay with Wasps playing a few big European games here. Cov rugby are against any permanent move here, but have said they would be okay with Wasps playing a few big European games here.

At the moment it is negotiations. Let's see what happens from these talks. Wasps proposal could well get diluted. Who knows. If it is to be a straight permanent move then I feel we should indeed all oppose it.

 

[MichaelCCFC]

Yep, and there within is the crux of the matter. If true.

Think that people like myself are merely saying, let's see if this is the case. Let's have all the facts and see exactly what the deal is. We hear of negotiations, well negotiations are a case of someone putting forwards a proposal and then talks on the matter and usually there's some give and some take.

I can't really see ACL / CCC agreeing to anything that would compromise the football club and that would kick us out of the Ricoh. Be very surprised if that happened.

Just how many times in life have we all said 'Well, I never saw that coming?' Could certainly be said to be true of this Wasps taking over the Ricoh. I would never have imagined that in a month of Sundays.

Let's just wait and see if the deal is what on the surface we think it is.

Good, I was puzzled why there was disagreement when everyone seemed to be agreeing!


The only issue, here and on FB, seems to be the argument Italia has just made. I can see entirely why the kind of acl-wasps plan as described in the CT would be for good for acl. But my concern is arguing for the interests of the team and fans to be put first not the finances/profits of acl-sisu.

 

[Otis]

Good, I was puzzled why there was disagreement when everyone seemed to be agreeing!


The only issue, here and on FB, seems to be the argument Italia has just made. I can see entirely why the kind of acl-wasps plan as described in the CT would be for good for acl. But my concern is arguing for the interests of the team and fans to be put first not the finances/profits of acl-sisu.

This why I can't understand why some posters on here seem to be trying to beat me over the head with a stick, Michael. I am in agreement with the very people who arguing with me for some reason. I agree with them. All I want is just confirmation that what we have heard from the CT is indeed the truth and Wasps want a permanent move here. That is all I am saying.

When the Scottish referendum vote was on, on the morning of the count I got up early to see the result. At 4.30 the experts were saying the No camp had won. I was in the No camp, but didn't celebrate, or give a sigh of relief, or just accept it as true. The SNP hadn't conceded and it wasn't offical. I just wanted to wait until they either conceded or it was officially confirmed the No campaign had won.

Just think that is a sensible stance to have. Just want confirmation and from what I can see we have had no official statement from Wasps, ACL or the council.