New stadium meeting with RBC (19 Viewers)

[Astute]

Cant be arsed to read 25 pages. Can someone summarise in less than 20 words?

Cheers.

Fishers a twat. Waggotts a twat. Joys a bitch. CCC are wankers. No stadium to be built. Wasps might go bust as bonds bad move.

 

---

[Noggin]

Cant be arsed to read 25 pages. Can someone summarise in less than 20 words?

Cheers.

2 years in sisu meet a council, doesn't go well, going to put forward a proposal, loads of hurdles in way

 

[skybluetony176]

Cant be arsed to read 25 pages. Can someone summarise in less than 20 words?

Cheers.

Basically I think it means there was no exciting announcement in the new year unless the exciting announcement was we've found a phone number for a council.

 

[Nick]

The best news to come out with this is that it isn't too hard to get minutes from secret council meetings if you really want to.

 

[The Reverend Skyblue]

So what good will voting every Labour and Conservative councillor out tomorrow do for CCFC?

The vote was based on information provided by council officials, not councillors. SISU tried the old 'Labour against private enterprise' argument, but failed to mention that the Tories voted with the Labour majority, making it a unanimous decision. What reasoning is there that any other political parties/independents would have voted any differently?

Are you saying the council should have sold ACL to SISU simply because they controlled our 'local football club', no matter how bad the deal was for the citizens of Coventry?

Your logic is flawed because you can only see things through sky blue tinted glasses.

Or am I being too 'patronising'?

thats my point , they may have voted a different way then or in the future, you don't know how they would have voted.

And thats at my point. I don't know the local policies of the other parties, people of Cov should find out there position on working with the club for a new stadium, if they think they could vote for them as voting Con and Lab is a waste of time regarding forming a relationship with the club.

 

[Calista]

Haven’t read the thread, too little time. Rugby Borough’s area extends right to the fringes of the city, and that’s where I’d expect any proposed site to be.

From my (admittedly partial) knowledge of the planning process, the important thing is whether a proposed development makes sense in terms of land use. The use of spurious criteria such as “we won’t consider anywhere in Coventry because we don’t like the City Council” is not likely to help. Yet they seem to have admitted in the meeting that that is the case.

 

[italiahorse]

The best news to come out with this is that it isn't too hard to get minutes from secret council meetings if you really want to.

.... minus the interesting information which is confidential and removed.

 

[italiahorse]

Cant be arsed to read 25 pages. Can someone summarise in less than 20 words?

Cheers.

SISU are pissed of with CCC and so don't want Coventry to benefit from the new stadium and it's community benefits.
RBC have met them and told them that they need to follow normal planning guidelines.
The land is green belt and if up for grabs SISU will not be the only interested parties.
Unlikely that Green belt will be considered but tell RBC what you want and it can be considered like any proposal for inclusion in the next 10 year plan.

If they had asked me 2 years ago I could have told them that.

 

[shy_tall_knight]

Look at the club shop possibly the worst club shop in the whole league especially as it doesn't even stock the current kit, have a look at the table at the Ricoh concourse selling CCFC products and then tell me that you trust these clowns to build a new stadium, meetings although necessary are cheap. More bluff and posturing from the company that claims not to.

 

[The Gentleman]

I think that during this next government, they will have to deliver on some pledges else they risk losing lots of voters who think what's the point. With this in mind, housing is going to be high on peoples lists and any available land will be looked at by house builders, property development companies and housing associations along with Sisu and there is no way that Sisu will pay for land what the above mentioned will in a bidding war. Anything out of town will not attract supermarkets and with shops still needing to be filled, I cannot see developers coming from that side of town either. If Sisu really are serious (and I don't think they are for one minute) then they are going to have to part with some very serious cash of their own (or their investors) and with no guarantee of success or a buyer then all I can see is them playing a waiting game on the Ricoh. It still makes me laugh that some will buy this shit they spout.

 

[skybluetony176]

I think that during this next government, they will have to deliver on some pledges else they risk losing lots of voters who think what's the point. With this in mind, housing is going to be high on peoples lists and any available land will be looked at by house builders, property development companies and housing associations along with Sisu and there is no way that Sisu will pay for land what the above mentioned will in a bidding war. Anything out of town will not attract supermarkets and with shops still needing to be filled, I cannot see developers coming from that side of town either. If Sisu really are serious (and I don't think they are for one minute) then they are going to have to part with some very serious cash of their own (or their investors) and with no guarantee of success or a buyer then all I can see is them playing a waiting game on the Ricoh. It still makes me laugh that some will buy this shit they spout.

I have to add to that, that alot of the green belt around the boarders of towns and cities is already owned by major house builders as part of their land banks. When I use to work on building sites not that many years ago I worked on a Westbury's site in Milton Keynes and according to the site agent the site which was green belt had been purchased 25 years previously and then rented back to the farmer in a peppercorn rent. I wonder how much of this greenbelt that borders Coventry was snapped up years ago by house builders and is either not for sale, not for sale at a price that SISU can afford or is already earmarked as a site for housing?

 

[simonregis]

Does anyone know the sites where the talks are about? Rugby council, for many years, wanted to build an airport near Church Lawford so I guess that's an option and of course the land around Ryton which would be the most obvious. Also, is SISU planning to buy the land or work on this project with the council?

 

[olderskyblue]

The best news to come out with this is that it isn't too hard to get minutes from secret council meetings if you really want to.

Clearly Simon doesn't understand the FOI act.... I'm sure Tim will mention it at the next SCG meeting...

(and no, I haven't missed your real point....)

 

[skybluetony176]

Does anyone know the sites where the talks are about? Rugby council, for many years, wanted to build an airport near Church Lawford so I guess that's an option and of course the land around Ryton which would be the most obvious. Also, is SISU planning to buy the land or work on this project with the council?

No they didn't. That came from central government and was always a red herring. The major clue being the report the government released said the site was a low level flood risk site. The very week the report was released the area flooded and stayed flooded for a couple of weeks when the Avon burst it's banks. As it does a few times each year.

 

[chiefdave]

I wonder how much of this greenbelt that borders Coventry was snapped up years ago by house builders and is either not for sale, not for sale at a price that SISU can afford or is already earmarked as a site for housing?

Isn't this where the city plan becomes key? If RBC say that SISU's proposed site can't be used for housing and is designated for a sports facility wouldn't that impact on the value as it could no longer be used for housing?

Does anyone know the sites where the talks are about?

For me the ideal location would be the chunk of land between Rolls Royce and the M69 right by Ansty Business Park. Not near much, if any, housing so less of an issue with NIMBYs objecting. Already has decent infrastructure. The business park could provide additional parking on a matchday and there's already some places to eat and drink nearby on the opposite side of the motorway (where Showcase Cinema is). I believe there is already a route to pass under the motorway on foot as well.

Other guesses would be around Broadstreet rugby or something in the general area of the airport or the former Peugeot site if any of that is not part of the new business park.

 

[olderskyblue]

former Peugeot site if any of that is not part of the new business park.

I think most of that is already spoken for. JLR have also bought more land on that site too (in addition to their special vehicles building)

 

[chiefdave]

JLR have also bought more land on that site too (in addition to their special vehicles building)

As they suddenly seem so keen to help 'local' teams maybe they'll let us have a stadium on their land

 

[duffer]

No they didn't. That came from central government and was always a red herring. The major clue being the report the government released said the site was a low level flood risk site. The very week the report was released the area flooded and stayed flooded for a couple of weeks when the Avon burst it's banks. As it does a few times each year.

In truth I always thought the airport was planned for around Lawford Heath, where I worked for a while. That's a mile or so off the A45, near the old RAF Church Lawford base. Unlike Church Lawford (the village) that's a good few miles from the Avon and I don't remember us ever suffering from flooding.

Lawford Heath has a fair size industrial area and a very large car storage yard (I did fleet deliveries from there a long, long time ago). I suppose it could be a possibility...

 

[skybluetony176]

Isn't this where the city plan becomes key? If RBC say that SISU's proposed site can't be used for housing and is designated for a sports facility wouldn't that impact on the value as it could no longer be used for housing.

It's a good point. But some of the major house builders sit on land for decades waiting for it to become part of a town or city plan, it would be nothing new to them if their land isn't included in this round of town planning. I struggle to believe although I'm willing to admit I'm not an expert that housing will be pushed aside for a sports stadium. You only have to look at what all the parties are talking about in the lead up to todays events. They're all talking up the need for more housing not the need for sporting stadia.

 

[skybluetony176]

In truth I always thought the airport was planned for around Lawford Heath, where I worked for a while. That's a mile or so off the A45, near the old RAF Church Lawford base. Unlike Church Lawford (the village) that's a good few miles from the Avon and I don't remember us ever suffering from flooding.

Lawford Heath has a fair size industrial area and a very large car storage yard (I did fleet deliveries from there a long, long time ago). I suppose it could be a possibility...

My memory was that the proposed site was between Church Lawford and Bretford. Although it was such a long time ago you may well be right. You're definitely right on you're description of Lawford Heath, which is worrying as that certainly isn't on the Coventry boarder and a stadium there I think would be a step too far for most and will ultimately damage the club more than staying at the Ricoh on a rent deal.

 

[duffer]

My memory was that the proposed site was between Church Lawford and Bretford. Although it was such a long time ago you may well be right. You're definitely right on you're description of Lawford Heath, which is worrying as that certainly isn't on the Coventry boarder and a stadium there I think would be a step too far for most and will ultimately damage the club more than staying at the Ricoh on a rent deal.

SBT you could well be right on the airport thing, either way it always seemed a daft idea to me. As for the stadium, I'd entirely accept that SISU haven't put anything like a compelling plan together for it yet and I've absolutely no evidence that it would be Lawford Heath even if they were serious. If they do build one though, I think it's going to be outside the city. To be honest that sounds pretty horrible to me too, but I'll reserve judgement until I've seen where it is and what kind of case they can make for it.

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

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?

If they are worried about the greenbelt they should send them to our council in Nuneaton who seem to think green fields means a place to sell to developers to build on.

 

[shmmeee]

Isn't this where the city plan becomes key? If RBC say that SISU's proposed site can't be used for housing and is designated for a sports facility wouldn't that impact on the value as it could no longer be used for housing?



For me the ideal location would be the chunk of land between Rolls Royce and the M69 right by Ansty Business Park. Not near much, if any, housing so less of an issue with NIMBYs objecting. Already has decent infrastructure. The business park could provide additional parking on a matchday and there's already some places to eat and drink nearby on the opposite side of the motorway (where Showcase Cinema is). I believe there is already a route to pass under the motorway on foot as well.

Other guesses would be around Broadstreet rugby or something in the general area of the airport or the former Peugeot site if any of that is not part of the new business park.

That wouldn't be so bad, though two stadia one junction apart seems a bit silly.

Still hoping for another secret meeting that means it really will be near Warwick Uni, but it's not looking likely.

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

SBT you could well be right on the airport thing, either way it always seemed a daft idea to me. As for the stadium, I'd entirely accept that SISU haven't put anything like a compelling plan together for it yet and I've absolutely no evidence that it would be Lawford Heath even if they were serious. If they do build one though, I think it's going to be outside the city. To be honest that sounds pretty horrible to me too, but I'll reserve judgement until I've seen where it is and what kind of case they can make for it.

The airport was rumoured to be bigger than Heathrow. Lawford heath really has only one way in - A45. It's not on the border of Cov and would need a huge new road infrastructure. Mind you if it meant the prospect of a super-airport on my doorstep would be ended forever I might vote for it. Otherwise it's totally unacceptable.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

The airport was rumoured to be bigger than Heathrow. Lawford heath really has only one way in - A45. It's not on the border of Cov and would need a huge new road infrastructure. Mind you if it meant the prospect of a super-airport on my doorstep would be ended forever I might vote for it. Otherwise it's totally unacceptable.

The airport was always just the political option to make Heathrow look better and get through with less opposition.