Astute
Well-Known Member
Oh great. We are going to get some new pictures of the stadium.
New stadium meeting with RBC (27 Viewers)
- Thread starter chiefdave
- Start date
Oh great. We are going to get some new pictures of the stadium.
hill83
Well-Known Member
Such a visionary. We all thought it was happening. Crisis averted.
Close the thread Nick.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
And a few random thoughts.
Does indeed confirm the local plan is key to planning permission for a new stadium. Extending that to the City of Coventry, no scope for a stadium is in said plan. CCFC come up with gibberish about investors, but it takes two parties to change that - we need scope for a new stadium in CCC's local plan, we need discussions to be started with CCC also.
Happy to split sites for ground and training. In which case, what is wrong with Ryton for training? Unless they fancy buying the Old Bull and Butcher and popping a stadium there...
Again back to the 'not involving CCC'. If it's greenbelt between Coventry and Rugby, surely CCC have a say? As CCC's current policy is to protect greenbelt as much as possible, aren't they going to have a say? As they thus have a say... doesn't that then make my first point even more valid if the club have to deal with them to get anything through anyway?
If they could knock Brownsover and/or Long Lawford down, that'd be a decent service to the community.
How much space does the Broadstreet Rugby ground use? How much space is around it?
Is a free pen offered with every planning application?
Does indeed confirm the local plan is key to planning permission for a new stadium. Extending that to the City of Coventry, no scope for a stadium is in said plan. CCFC come up with gibberish about investors, but it takes two parties to change that - we need scope for a new stadium in CCC's local plan, we need discussions to be started with CCC also.
Happy to split sites for ground and training. In which case, what is wrong with Ryton for training? Unless they fancy buying the Old Bull and Butcher and popping a stadium there...
Again back to the 'not involving CCC'. If it's greenbelt between Coventry and Rugby, surely CCC have a say? As CCC's current policy is to protect greenbelt as much as possible, aren't they going to have a say? As they thus have a say... doesn't that then make my first point even more valid if the club have to deal with them to get anything through anyway?
If they could knock Brownsover and/or Long Lawford down, that'd be a decent service to the community.
How much space does the Broadstreet Rugby ground use? How much space is around it?
Is a free pen offered with every planning application?
Moff
Well-Known Member
It took your time to be converted, thanks for the Compliment.
After your post the other day, perhaps you need a second pint and a third wank.
hill83
Well-Known Member
Good idea actually. Im off work all week.
skybluebeduff
Well-Known Member
Does this not finally prove RFC to be absolutely full of shit?..... HELP
If if they want 24/7 income and do not want to compete against the Ricoh, why not build a hotel near the stadium. Put it in the name of CCFC, pick up all the accomodation, extra small projects from the stadium, 24/7.
in a stadium they will not be using the pitch except for games so it's an unnecessary cost.
do a long term deal with Ricoh.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
They could sell off all the players and the training ground to pay for the hotel. Maybe even have enough spare cash left over to open a wine bar or two.
Moff
Well-Known Member
Dont go blind!
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
Is there anything stopping CCC changing the boundaries of their region to look like they're appeasing the masses in aide of SISU?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Moff
Well-Known Member
So Fisher claims the club were interetsed in the Prologis site at Ryton, which is handy now its been built on, and show how ineffective he is that when the land was free they did nothing, althouygh he clearly didnt seem to ahve any intention of doing anything anyway.
He has ruled our the Brandon site, although logistically it would be very difficult to develop re traffic issues, and the only other feasible site Ansty he isnt interested in, whilst green belt is a no no. He is just a complete clown.
I seem to remember years ago, way before the Ricoh, the club once looked at the feasibility of building a new stadium up at the Walsgrave triangle near the M69, and possibly just over the border? although it may have been just inside the City boundary. It never got off the ground but shows that the area was on the clubs radar years ago, although we werent owned by such a bunch of clueless bellends at that time.
He has ruled our the Brandon site, although logistically it would be very difficult to develop re traffic issues, and the only other feasible site Ansty he isnt interested in, whilst green belt is a no no. He is just a complete clown.
I seem to remember years ago, way before the Ricoh, the club once looked at the feasibility of building a new stadium up at the Walsgrave triangle near the M69, and possibly just over the border? although it may have been just inside the City boundary. It never got off the ground but shows that the area was on the clubs radar years ago, although we werent owned by such a bunch of clueless bellends at that time.
That sounds like It would push us further out as TF states this Investor Is unwilling to Invest In land under CCC jurisdiction
For me that Is quite a telling comment
Otis
Well-Known Member
Then next week you will be off work all week too, because you won't be able to write due to the blisters.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Is this the out of contract players, the players we will be signing soon or those that we sold last year?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Getting a bit optimistic today Wingy.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Think there's a stadium right by Tesco Arena.
We would have to share with a different sporting team though.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
lot of contradiction, plenty of buzz words and descriptions that we all know will appeal to any council it seems to me.
The thing that first comes to mind is that it seems little has actually been done and that the process was really kick started once the Ricoh was sold on to Wasps
Then there is the number of things that are in the minutes of meeting that have yet to be done that TF has previously confirmed to the likes of the SCG etc as being done/signed off/ready in 3 weeks etc. For example these minutes suggest that the Highways agency be contacted "RB recommends initial discussions with Highways Agency." "TF confirmed that they have done some initial works and discussed modelling with transport consultants" I am pretty sure that SCG minutes not so long back said the Highways Agency were about to sign off on it.
Then there is we want it all on one site but it might have to be two. As NW says we already have Ryton why the need for two new sites? The Academy is a cornerstone to the business but it doesn't have to be part of the one site as has always been envisaged? Other teams don't but these minutes quickly switch between 1 site and 2
Just how much community is there in a greenfield site for a community integrated stadium? The thing about most stadiums is that they are urban and in the middle of people which makes 365 day usage far easier. On a greenfield site outside of Coventry or Rugby then that means transport links, green transport plans, larger car parks, plans that make people go there not some other venue. That means cost and more than one Council being involved
So when it has been said by various people they had seen plans etc? :thinking about: ........."CCFC have not had any plans drawn yet as want to discuss with RBC initially – as would ideally like to get political buy-in at an early stage"
"TF said that he may put the Academy forward in the first instance" so we have a training ground and our greatest need is revenue this moves that forward how? Indication that there is no future at the Higgs Centre perhaps?
"CCFC would be keen to develop this idea as the Stadium is under-used at present and this would present a wider remit as a performance centre for games". Is it under used I thought there were other contracts in place and with the new pitch going down that should improve.... the downside being it has nothing to do with CCFC
"TF confirmed that it may be possible to split the resources, with a proposal to build the Academy facility in green belt and the Stadium lying outside the green belt area." So at least one site is not in the greenbelt?
"He confirmed that there are investors interested, so long as the physical resource is outside of Coventry (due to Coventry Council doing a hostile take-over of the Club they don’t wish to invest in Coventry)." Why would new investors be bothered - we already know that the stadium wont be owned by Otium/CCFC so the investment opportunity is in the stadium isn't it?
Its all well and good saying they wont work with CCC but the reality is they have to surely? Who are they expecting to approve or even pay for the infrastructure and road improvements that will inevitably affect the City of Coventry ?
As for the FL stuff well we already know their rules and regulations are weak and can be changed at the FL Boards "discretion" I wouldn't put any reliance on their demands for 8 mile radius
Would be helpful if the CT could up date their graphic and overlay the RBS boundaries over the 8 mile radius - much of which is not in RBC area
So the site will be 60 acres or 2 x 30 - why spend extra money for first team site when they have Ryton - (apparently not got alternative planning use or great value to sell on). Land costs in this are going to be significant surely ? Surely Pro Logis Park is closely involved with CCC so was never a starter?
"TF confirmed that they have the ability to extend their lease at Ricoh in Coventry, but need to find a site that satisfies all CCFC requirements, integrating a community facility and Stadium (Ricoh doesn’t meet the community needs)." What are these community needs? The Ricoh seems to have created employment and the aim was to regenerate that area - aren't those community needs? Interesting to see what the Wasps reaction to the rental extension would be - especially as some of the sites CCFC might be looking at may be being considered for the Wasps academy etc
The timings are worrying because the club could still be in limbo well past December 2016 with not one foundation dug and relying on current levels of income to survive. How long has the Coventry gateway application gone on for?
Initial consultation with RBC after over 2 years of diversion - disappointing. Still don't have the economic case from the club or owners in any detail or how it will be paid for
The thing that first comes to mind is that it seems little has actually been done and that the process was really kick started once the Ricoh was sold on to Wasps
Then there is the number of things that are in the minutes of meeting that have yet to be done that TF has previously confirmed to the likes of the SCG etc as being done/signed off/ready in 3 weeks etc. For example these minutes suggest that the Highways agency be contacted "RB recommends initial discussions with Highways Agency." "TF confirmed that they have done some initial works and discussed modelling with transport consultants" I am pretty sure that SCG minutes not so long back said the Highways Agency were about to sign off on it.
Then there is we want it all on one site but it might have to be two. As NW says we already have Ryton why the need for two new sites? The Academy is a cornerstone to the business but it doesn't have to be part of the one site as has always been envisaged? Other teams don't but these minutes quickly switch between 1 site and 2
Just how much community is there in a greenfield site for a community integrated stadium? The thing about most stadiums is that they are urban and in the middle of people which makes 365 day usage far easier. On a greenfield site outside of Coventry or Rugby then that means transport links, green transport plans, larger car parks, plans that make people go there not some other venue. That means cost and more than one Council being involved
So when it has been said by various people they had seen plans etc? :thinking about: ........."CCFC have not had any plans drawn yet as want to discuss with RBC initially – as would ideally like to get political buy-in at an early stage"
"TF said that he may put the Academy forward in the first instance" so we have a training ground and our greatest need is revenue this moves that forward how? Indication that there is no future at the Higgs Centre perhaps?
"CCFC would be keen to develop this idea as the Stadium is under-used at present and this would present a wider remit as a performance centre for games". Is it under used I thought there were other contracts in place and with the new pitch going down that should improve.... the downside being it has nothing to do with CCFC
"TF confirmed that it may be possible to split the resources, with a proposal to build the Academy facility in green belt and the Stadium lying outside the green belt area." So at least one site is not in the greenbelt?
"He confirmed that there are investors interested, so long as the physical resource is outside of Coventry (due to Coventry Council doing a hostile take-over of the Club they don’t wish to invest in Coventry)." Why would new investors be bothered - we already know that the stadium wont be owned by Otium/CCFC so the investment opportunity is in the stadium isn't it?
Its all well and good saying they wont work with CCC but the reality is they have to surely? Who are they expecting to approve or even pay for the infrastructure and road improvements that will inevitably affect the City of Coventry ?
As for the FL stuff well we already know their rules and regulations are weak and can be changed at the FL Boards "discretion" I wouldn't put any reliance on their demands for 8 mile radius
Would be helpful if the CT could up date their graphic and overlay the RBS boundaries over the 8 mile radius - much of which is not in RBC area
So the site will be 60 acres or 2 x 30 - why spend extra money for first team site when they have Ryton - (apparently not got alternative planning use or great value to sell on). Land costs in this are going to be significant surely ? Surely Pro Logis Park is closely involved with CCC so was never a starter?
"TF confirmed that they have the ability to extend their lease at Ricoh in Coventry, but need to find a site that satisfies all CCFC requirements, integrating a community facility and Stadium (Ricoh doesn’t meet the community needs)." What are these community needs? The Ricoh seems to have created employment and the aim was to regenerate that area - aren't those community needs? Interesting to see what the Wasps reaction to the rental extension would be - especially as some of the sites CCFC might be looking at may be being considered for the Wasps academy etc
The timings are worrying because the club could still be in limbo well past December 2016 with not one foundation dug and relying on current levels of income to survive. How long has the Coventry gateway application gone on for?
Initial consultation with RBC after over 2 years of diversion - disappointing. Still don't have the economic case from the club or owners in any detail or how it will be paid for
Last edited:
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
We get our hopes up after getting a decent manager and surviving relegation, when true to form Sisu feed us bad news that leaves us in limbo for years to come.
Every year I put in a SHLAA for my land and every so many years I try and feed into the Local Plan.
It's what thousands of land owners do. Most, like myself, get turned down.
I don't bullshit all my friends and family in that I am building 200 houses in 2 years time.
CCC beat them at their own game and now us CCFC fans who have to suffer because Sisu can't get over it.
Sisu have not been backed into a corner, they have their arse in their hand that prevents them from making any long term deal at the Ricoh.
The sooner these clowns leave the better.
"Can't invest in Coventry" ? FFS
Why, don't they ask the fans before committing them away from Coventry?
I'm sure it would focus their plans if they did.
Any business would do this first. Surely.
Every year I put in a SHLAA for my land and every so many years I try and feed into the Local Plan.
It's what thousands of land owners do. Most, like myself, get turned down.
I don't bullshit all my friends and family in that I am building 200 houses in 2 years time.
CCC beat them at their own game and now us CCFC fans who have to suffer because Sisu can't get over it.
Sisu have not been backed into a corner, they have their arse in their hand that prevents them from making any long term deal at the Ricoh.
The sooner these clowns leave the better.
"Can't invest in Coventry" ? FFS
Why, don't they ask the fans before committing them away from Coventry?
I'm sure it would focus their plans if they did.
Any business would do this first. Surely.
The Reverend Skyblue
Well-Known Member
One thing the good folk of Cov could do tomorrow is vote out the council and Instill a new council from a party willing to work with the club.
kg82
Well-Known Member
Is Fisher running?
They were "beaten" to prologis because they couldn't afford to pay for it )not that I believe they tried),the amount of land they wanted would have cost £39million. There is just no way the stadium ever pays for itself with us in league one. It's clear they cant build what they are "planning" even for 50million. I still think this meeting was just to stave off the embarrassment of foi requests showing them to be liars.
Last edited:
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Yep, in that respect it is good news. In 3-4 months time we will have a better idea of what the plans are. We have another 1+2 years at the Ricoh, so no real rush to try and negotiate a longer deal just yet, especially as we know that part ownership of ACL and access to additional revenues is non starter, plus there's no way we will get as attractive terms as we currently have now.
I don't think fans should use this an excuse not to go (there are plenty other excuses), get Mowbray signed up and we should get up there and back him, we have at least 3 years left at the Ricoh lets just back the manager and the players and let sisu get on with it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Astute
Well-Known Member
Like yellow and black seats?
Astute
Well-Known Member
I wish he would. And never stop. Just keep going Fisher.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Absolutely. Tbf I have reconsidered that stance and I will make allowances whilst we're temporary/short term tenants, but if we agree a 100 year deal and they are yellow and back, I'm done.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Yes. .
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
That's an option Rev certainly, although not likely I would think.
Thing is we are talking politicians and you could argue they will work with the devil if it suits their political agenda. However looking forward, judging from those minutes there really hasn't been anything to work with for either RBC or CCC in respect of CCFC and a new stadium.
Astute
Well-Known Member
As long as we are about we would be in a good position if the Wasps go tits up. They can't give away so many tickets and go on forever. And they bwill have a lot of money to pay back in 6 to 7 years. Where are they going to raise 5m a year after paying all of the interest? Is that why Richardson wants his money back?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Let's hope so. It's the only way we will have any decent future as a club.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Yep, in that respect it is good news. In 3-4 months time we will have a better idea of what the plans are. We have another 1+2 years at the Ricoh, so no real rush to try and negotiate a longer deal just yet, especially as we know that part ownership of ACL and access to additional revenues is non starter, plus there's no way we will get as attractive terms as we currently have now.
I don't think fans should use this an excuse not to go (there are plenty other excuses), get Mowbray signed up and we should get up there and back him, we have at least 3 years left at the Ricoh lets just back the manager and the players and let sisu get on with it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
we only have a better idea in a few months if the club puts together a good plan and RBC think the plans are the best thing they can do on the site otherwise we'll be where we are now other than rugby looking less likely than it already does. Even if the club do put forward the plan and RBC like it and feel it is ok on Greenbelt that doesn't mean a new stadium it just looks a bit more likely, it would have to go through public consultation and not be stopped by the government like the coventry gateway, public consultation could easily fail too with the massive illfeeling leading to many complaints, the money would need to be there (and almost certainly isn't). Even if they are serious this could easily go on for a decade.