A good potential site for a new ground in Coventry (3 Viewers)

shy_tall_knight · Dec 27, 2016

IMO, BPA was a non-starter, although it would be great site and location just not practical for accommodating > 10,000 fans.

The old Courtaulds Cricket Ground in Foleshill seems big enough and possibly easier to relocate some of the other businesses to create even more development. Further away from the city centre than highfield road but a lot closer than the Ricoh. Not sure if there is any planned development but like the idea of an inner city stadium rather than an out of town one like the Ricoh.

chiefdave · Dec 27, 2016

There's new housing on part of it I think and a Sikh temple (?) being built on the other side. Not sure how much space that leaves.

Gosford Green · Dec 27, 2016

The new ground will never happen under SISU, any new owners will probably cut a deal with the dark lords at ACL.

SISU engineered talk of this new ground is just deflecting attention (and blame) from the perilous state of the club on and off the pitch.

shy_tall_knight · Dec 27, 2016

Gosford Green said:
The new ground will never happen under SISU, any new owners will probably cut a deal with the dark lords at ACL.

SISU engineered talk of this new ground is just deflecting attention (and blame) from the perilous state of the club on and off the pitch.

I agree but if and its a big if we got new owners with deep pockets and they couldn't cut a deal with WASPS for shared ownership its not a bad site, got to dream a bit reality of our situation is so depressing

chiefdave · Dec 27, 2016

Gosford Green said:
The new ground will never happen under SISU

The council are missing a golden opportunity to expose SISU here. They should make it publically known there is a suitable piece of land available, Woodlands for example, and say they will do everything they can to support an application to build a new stadium there.

Gosford Green · Dec 27, 2016

I'd guess any land would be private and the council would only have to be involved in the planning process.

If CCC did give it on a plate SISU would only claim problems with other parties, or jumping on reports of a fight outside the Cherry Tree as the reason why investors pulled out.

skybluetony176 · Dec 27, 2016

chiefdave said:
The council are missing a golden opportunity to expose SISU here. They should make it publically known there is a suitable piece of land available, Woodlands for example, and say they will do everything they can to support an application to build a new stadium there.

Expose SISU? You don't think they've already been exposed? I think most people already see them for what they are and what they will and won't do. Do you really want a local authority to actively get involved in some elaborate game of bluff to "prove" what we already know? Was that a serious statement?

shy_tall_knight · Dec 27, 2016

Woodlands not central enough, difficult to get to as would involve crossing the A45 for most Coventry based fans, also a fairly residential area

chiefdave · Dec 27, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Was that a serious statement?

Yes it was. In my opinion the more pressure that can be put on them the better. The more their statements and promises can be shown to be false the better.

For me it would be far better for the council to be saying they would support any application 100% and where possible highlighting suitable pieces of available land than act like they did with the Butts and try and block things from the off.

That just gives Fisher an easy get out. He can go to the FA, FL and local media claiming the owners were attempting to move things forward but are being blocked by the council. How can he claim that if the council are giving full support. He will have to come up with other excuses and will have less and less credibility. Its all well and good saying our fans know he's full of it but we need people like the FA and FL to realise the same.

Moff · Dec 27, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Expose SISU? You don't think they've already been exposed? I think most people already see them for what they are and what they will and won't do. Do you really want a local authority to actively get involved in some elaborate game of bluff to "prove" what we already know? Was that a serious statement?

People talk in many threads about maximising the pressure on SISU, and maximising bad press. The council haven't been short of involvement before so why cant the council call their bluff, and badly expose them? It adds to the pressure and maximises bad press. I would have thought you would have jumped at more embarrassment for them.

skybluetony176 · Dec 27, 2016

chiefdave said:
Yes it was. In my opinion the more pressure that can be put on them the better. The more their statements and promises can be shown to be false the better.

For me it would be far better for the council to be saying they would support any application 100% and where possible highlighting suitable pieces of available land than act like they did with the Butts and try and block things from the off.

That just gives Fisher an easy get out. He can go to the FA, FL and local media claiming the owners were attempting to move things forward but are being blocked by the council. How can he claim that if the council are giving full support. He will have to come up with other excuses and will have less and less credibility. Its all well and good saying our fans know he's full of it but we need people like the FA and FL to realise the same.

OK. It's now a local authorities job to actively call the bluff of a hedge fund. Fair enough.

Just one point. Doesn't the fact that SISU haven't gone to the council asking for help mean that the bluff is already called? You talk about giving Fisher a get out when that's already what you've done by putting the onus in the council. CCFC is SISU's responsibility. No one else. Putting the onus on someone else is giving them a get out. Well done.

skybluetony176 · Dec 27, 2016

Moff said:
People talk in many threads about maximising the pressure on SISU, and maximising bad press. The council haven't been short of involvement before so why cant the council call their bluff, and badly expose them? It adds to the pressure and maximises bad press. I would have thought you would have jumped at more embarrassment for them.

The council have only called their bluff when SISU have taken the fight to them i.e. the JR or when it involves something that they have a vested interest in i.e. ACL. Do you seriously think that a local authority should actively seek to start a game of silly buggers with a hedge fund? I think you've misunderstood the roll of a local authority if you do.

chiefdave · Dec 27, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
OK. It's now a local authorities job to actively call the bluff of a hedge fund. Fair enough.

I didn't say it was their job I said it was an opportunity. SISU and Fisher need to be shown up as much as possible. Unfortunately the fans running on the pitch or articles in the CT aren't going to do the job.

Lets look at it logically. The club don't extend the deal at the Ricoh so have to go back to the FA / FL for permission to move and ground share again.

Do you think it is easier for them if they can just present information that shows they tried to talk with Wasps and Wasps refused and they tried to sort a groundshare at the Butts but CCC attempted to block it. To me that gives every opportunity needed for a move to be rubber stamped.

If on the other hand you had Wasps prepared to negotiate and CCC publicly declaring support for any new ground that would be a much harder sell.

Not like we're saying the council needs to spend a huge amount of time or effort. All it takes is one call to the CT and an article being published and its job done.

Moff · Dec 27, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
The council have only called their bluff when SISU have taken the fight to them i.e. the JR or when it involves something that they have a vested interest in i.e. ACL. Do you seriously think that a local authority should actively seek to start a game of silly buggers with a hedge fund? I think you've misunderstood the roll of a local authority if you do.

Its only silly buggers in your head Tony, as that's obviously the level you cant see above.

The Council have land at their disposal, they will need to sell it. They have a football club they wish to keep in the City, but whose owners they abhor, and want rid of. The Council are not short of a PR exercise, or have you conveniently missed the other ones, and could play SISU quite nicely here. I thought you would be able to comprehend that, obviously not. Oh and having worked for two LA's in the past I have a very good idea of how they work, the politics involved, and the games they play. Its apparent you don't.

Deleted member 5849 · Dec 27, 2016

chiefdave said:
Yes it was. In my opinion the more pressure that can be put on them the better. The more their statements and promises can be shown to be false the better.

For me it would be far better for the council to be saying they would support any application 100% and where possible highlighting suitable pieces of available land than act like they did with the Butts and try and block things from the off.

That just gives Fisher an easy get out. He can go to the FA, FL and local media claiming the owners were attempting to move things forward but are being blocked by the council. How can he claim that if the council are giving full support. He will have to come up with other excuses and will have less and less credibility. Its all well and good saying our fans know he's full of it but we need people like the FA and FL to realise the same.

It also shows anybody thinking about taking us over that he local council would move heaven and earth to help its football club find an appropriate site. That's got to be worthwhile given the benefits a football club brings to its community.

skybluetony176 · Dec 27, 2016

Moff said:
Its only silly buggers in your head Tony, as that's obviously the level you cant see above.

The Council have land at their disposal, they will need to sell it. They have a football club they wish to keep in the City, but whose owners they abhor, and want rid of. The Council are not short of a PR exercise, or have you conveniently missed the other ones, and could play SISU quite nicely here. I thought you would be able to comprehend that, obviously not. Oh and having worked for two LA's in the past I have a very good idea of how they work, the politics involved, and the games they play. Its apparent you don't.

No. It's silly buggers Moff full stop. You're advocating that the council quite deliberately start a game of cat and mouse with a hedge fund. A hedge fund who have already repeatedly been exposed by FOI's, false dawns, unmet self imposed deadlines, no business plan and no real action to actually move forward one step with what they're publicly proposing to do. Yet you seem to think that entertaining them further in a game of cat and mouse is a good use of public funding and resources. Really? Seriously. What planet are you and others who think that this is a good idea on? It's a bullshit suggestion and an out for TF and the owners to suggest that the onus should be on someone other than them.

skybluetony176 · Dec 27, 2016

Deleted member 5849 said:
It also shows anybody thinking about taking us over that he local council would move heaven and earth to help its football club find an appropriate site. That's got to be worthwhile given the benefits a football club brings to its community.

I would think that anyone serious about buying the club would find that out for themselves by doing due diligence and part of that due diligence being talking to the local authority about investment opportunities in a new stadium.

skybluetony176 · Dec 27, 2016

chiefdave said:
I didn't say it was their job I said it was an opportunity. SISU and Fisher need to be shown up as much as possible. Unfortunately the fans running on the pitch or articles in the CT aren't going to do the job.

Lets look at it logically. The club don't extend the deal at the Ricoh so have to go back to the FA / FL for permission to move and ground share again.

Do you think it is easier for them if they can just present information that shows they tried to talk with Wasps and Wasps refused and they tried to sort a groundshare at the Butts but CCC attempted to block it. To me that gives every opportunity needed for a move to be rubber stamped.

If on the other hand you had Wasps prepared to negotiate and CCC publicly declaring support for any new ground that would be a much harder sell.

Not like we're saying the council needs to spend a huge amount of time or effort. All it takes is one call to the CT and an article being published and its job done.

The pressure should be on SISU to persue it with the council. Why do you want to put the onus on someone else? You're only giving SISU an out if you do. CCFC is the responsibility of SISU, no one else. Keep the onus on those who's responsibility it is. Don't let them of the hook by putting it on someone else.

Moff · Dec 27, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
No. It's silly buggers Moff full stop. You're advocating that the council quite deliberately start a game of cat and mouse with a hedge fund. A hedge fund who have already repeatedly been exposed by FOI's, false dawns, unmet self imposed deadlines, no business plan and no real action to actually move forward one step with what they're publicly proposing to do. Yet you seem to think that entertaining them further in a game of cat and mouse is a good use of public funding and resources. Really? Seriously. What planet are you and others who think that this is a good idea on? It's a bullshit suggestion and an out for TF and the owners to suggest that the onus should be on someone other than them.

Political posturing is the word. It does happen, if you think it doesn't then I think you are denying the fact. It happens all the time, and worse. Highlighting the fact the Council have available land, when they have a football club looking for it is hardly silly buggers is it, or are you really saying CCC don't use the press and PR for such matters?

As you are the only dissenting voice, I am more than happy with my view on the matter, and that I share it with others. I want the pressure maximised on SISU.

Deleted member 2477 · Dec 27, 2016

Never happen. Remember we have to be self sufficient under sisu so the club will have to pay to build a new ground.
Personally i dont want any building in my city to be owned or remind me of these parasites when they eventually crawl back to london

stupot07 · Dec 27, 2016

Deleted member 5849 said:
It also shows anybody thinking about taking us over that he local council would move heaven and earth to help its football club find an appropriate site. That's got to be worthwhile given the benefits a football club brings to its community.

Yep, putting the 'cat and mouse'/exposing sisu to one side, a genuine offer to help the club find a site and support a planning application is exactly what the LA should be doing and is a big tick for any prospective buyer of the football club.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

torchomatic · Dec 27, 2016

marcusp said:
Never happen. Remember we have to be self sufficient under sisu so the club will have to pay to build a new ground.
Personally i dont want any building in my city to be owned or remind me of these parasites when they eventually crawl back to london

SO you wouldn't want the club you support to have it own home in the City and be passed on to potential new owners when SISU eventually do leave? Fair enough, I guess.

shmmeee · Dec 27, 2016

shy_tall_knight said:
IMO, BPA was a non-starter, although it would be great site and location just not practical for accommodating > 10,000 fans.

The old Courtaulds Cricket Ground in Foleshill seems big enough and possibly easier to relocate some of the other businesses to create even more development. Further away from the city centre than highfield road but a lot closer than the Ricoh. Not sure if there is any planned development but like the idea of an inner city stadium rather than an out of town one like the Ricoh.

The owner wants to build houses there but locals complained about losing greenery in the least green area of Cov, and rightly so IMO. I live near there and would campaign against it.

shmmeee · Dec 27, 2016

Deleted member 5849 said:
It also shows anybody thinking about taking us over that he local council would move heaven and earth to help its football club find an appropriate site. That's got to be worthwhile given the benefits a football club brings to its community.

How many times? It's not the Councils job to run CCFC, all they could do was go to see Sisu and see what they want. They can't force Sisu to buy land and put an application in.

Unless you're suggesting they get involved in a joint project for building a new stadium, Im not sure many on here or indeed Sisu would gonqith that.

The Council got shot of the Ricoh because fucking about with the club distracted then from the far more important job of running the city. The last thing they'll want to do is jump back into bed with Sisu.

I know this isn't the answer people on here want to read, but if a company spends years treating people like shit, lying through their teeth, orchestrating a media campaign against them and even attempting to remove them from office (however hilariously poor the attempt was), then those people tend to not be desperate to do business with you when they don't have to.

Wishing Sisu hasn't burned all our bridges is nice, but not a realistic way forward.

Otis · Dec 27, 2016

As I've said a few times before, on the corner of Old Church Road there is now a big vacant lot. Easily enough room to build a stadium. Was a car lease place, but has now been closed down and the plot vacant for months.

Would be a nightmare traffic wise, but besides that it is very close to the Ricoh and all the facilities there and it is a very decent size too.

Deleted member 5849 · Dec 27, 2016

shmmeee said:
How many times? It's not the Councils job to run CCFC,

How many times?

Who said it fucking was?

Deleted member 5849 · Dec 27, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
I would think that anyone serious about buying the club would find that out for themselves by doing due diligence and part of that due diligence being talking to the local authority about investment opportunities in a new stadium.

Currently, I wouldn't even waste my time trying, as there are no signals to suggest it worth my while.

ceetee · Dec 27, 2016

shmmeee said:
How many times? It's not the Councils job to run CCFC, all they could do was go to see Sisu and see what they want. They can't force Sisu to buy land and put an application in.

Unless you're suggesting they get involved in a joint project for building a new stadium, Im not sure many on here or indeed Sisu would gonqith that.

The Council got shot of the Ricoh because fucking about with the club distracted then from the far more important job of running the city. The last thing they'll want to do is jump back into bed with Sisu.

I know this isn't the answer people on here want to read, but if a company spends years treating people like shit, lying through their teeth, orchestrating a media campaign against them and even attempting to remove them from office (however hilariously poor the attempt was), then those people tend to not be desperate to do business with you when they don't have to.

Wishing Sisu hasn't burned all our bridges is nice, but not a realistic way forward.

You seem to have overlooked CCCs involvement with Haskell

torchomatic · Dec 27, 2016

shmmeee said:
The Council got shot of the Ricoh because fucking about with the club distracted then from the far more important job of running the city. The last thing they'll want to do is jump back into bed with Sisu.

I know this isn't the answer people on here want to read, but if a company spends years treating people like shit, lying through their teeth, orchestrating a media campaign against them and even attempting to remove them from office (however hilariously poor the attempt was), then those people tend to not be desperate to do business with you when they don't have to.

You could be equally describing CCC and SISU at some point in this sorry saga.

And CCC got rid of the Ricoh out of spite.

Calista · Dec 27, 2016

It’s great that people are looking for sites, and nobody would be happier than me if one could be found and for CCFC to invest in a brilliant new home (especially if it was near the city centre). There’s nothing to stop the club putting in an application anywhere it fancies, but why would planners at the Council actively put forward a second stadium a spitting distance from the world-class one that’s already there? The problem is not that there isn’t a stadium for our club to play in, it’s that our club failed to get a stake in it. I don’t want to kick off yet another argument about that, I’m just pointing out that in terms of land-use planning, building another stadium in the north of Coventry makes absolutely no sense, and I can’t see the Council promoting that.

Maybe there’s a bit more mileage in seeking a site on the south or west side, in conjunction with the new western ring road that has been floated? It could tie in with future developments at the University, for example. It’s not going to happen in a hurry though, and it’s still hard to justify given that the city already has a fine stadium with capacity to host at least two sports. There may be a massive commercial and legal dispute, but there’s not a lack of stadium facilities, and development land is precious.

shy_tall_knight · Dec 27, 2016

shmmeee said:
The owner wants to build houses there but locals complained about losing greenery in the least green area of Cov, and rightly so IMO. I live near there and would campaign against it.

Do you know who owns it ?

Would you also be against a football stadium being there ?.

skybluetony176 · Dec 27, 2016

Deleted member 5849 said:
Currently, I wouldn't even waste my time trying, as there are no signals to suggest it worth my while.

You're talking about a company with a reactive mindset then not proactive. One that probably wouldn't look to buy the club in the first place as they wouldn't waste their time anyway as they're no signals to suggest it would be worth their while trying.

It must be a miracle that anything ever gets developed anywhere in Coventry as apparently anyone who might have been interested must have gone elsewhere. I wonder if JLR proactively approached CCC over the Whitley development or are their plan's for expansion and progression of their company driven by a reaction to the local authority? Were they waiting idly for CCC to tell them how to run their business or was approaching CCC for help with developing Whitley part of a coherent business plan that they developed themselves?

skybluetony176 · Dec 27, 2016

Deleted member 5849 said:
How many times?

Who said it fucking was?

Take a look in the mirror. You might not have cottoned on to it yet or used them exact words put the continual putting the responsibility on other parties shoulders as you, Dave and others have done not just on this thread is doing just that.

Nick · Dec 27, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Take a look in the mirror. You might not have cottoned on to it yet or used them exact words put the continual putting the responsibility on other parties shoulders as you, Dave and others have done not just on this thread is doing just that.

It's just wasting energy when they should just be posting about SISU isn't it Tony?

You must have missed the bit where they said it could potentially help attract buyers to CCFC if they know something is there on a plate ready to go.

skybluetony176 · Dec 27, 2016

Nick said:
It's just wasting energy when they should just be posting about SISU isn't it Tony?

You must have missed the bit where they said it could potentially help attract buyers to CCFC if they know something is there on a plate ready to go.

Good try Nick. I didn't miss anything. I did point out in reply to that point that anyone serious about buying CCFC would surely talk to CCC as part of their due diligence. Maybe you missed that part.

A good potential site for a new ground in Coventry (3 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 2477

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency